Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Arctic Convoys

Graham Allen: What medals have been awarded to British citizens who served on the Arctic convoys.

Ivor Caplin: Two campaign medals were awarded to those who saw service in the Arctic convoys. The qualifying criteria for the campaign medals awarded after the second world war were published in Command Paper 6633 in May 1945, and subsequently modified by Command Paper 6833 in June 1946. Both awards specifically stated that service on the convoys to north Russia was to be marked by the award of the Atlantic star in acknowledgement of their exemplary conduct.
	In addition, in 1994, on the advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Her Majesty the Queen granted permission for surviving veterans of the Arctic convoys to accept and wear the Russian 40th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War medal, which was instituted in 1985.

Graham Allen: I thank the Front-Bench team, the Prime Minister and Members in all parts of the House for the recognition of the Suez veterans a few months ago, which was much appreciated by them and showed that it is possible to recognise veterans even at such a late stage.
	Given that it is at least 50 years since the last serious discussion of this issue by the Ministry of Defence, will my hon. Friend have another look at it? There are very few surviving veterans who served our country on the Arctic convoys. As he said, the Russian Government have awarded them a specific medal. I hope that he will bear in mind the feelings of Members in all parts of the House and consider the matter again while a few of those heroes still survive.

Ivor Caplin: I assure my hon. Friend that the contemporary documentation has been looked at again. The evidence confirms that the HD committee—the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals—of the day did not overlook the convoys to Russia; indeed, the Command Papers specifically mention service in the Arctic. Like my hon. Friend and all other Members, we recognise the bravery of those who served on the convoys. Their service is recognised and covered by the award of the Atlantic star.

Bob Spink: My father was an Arctic convoy veteran. He received the Russian medal in the mid-1990s, and wore it with great pride until he died a few years ago. He would be the first to want me to stand up in the House and say that there were very special circumstances on the convoys, and that the Government should now find it in their heart to remember and recognise those who gave such valiant service to this country.

Ivor Caplin: We do exactly that through the award of the Atlantic star. I recognise the bravery of the hon. Gentleman's father, but the award of the Atlantic star is the right one according to the Command Papers published for the House in the 1940s.

D-Day

Bill Tynan: What plans his Department has to mark the 60th anniversary of D-day.

Dave Watts: What plans his Department has to mark the 60th anniversary of D-day.

Ivor Caplin: The Government recognise the importance of all the major events that led up to the end of the second world war, and in particular the continued interest and importance of the D-day landings. Our plans to mark those events include the recently launched "Veterans Reunited" programme. With the aid of lottery funding, it will involve all generations of UK residents in commemorating the events, both overseas and here at home.
	I can also confirm that Her Majesty the Queen, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and senior members of the armed forces will attend the main D-day commemorative events organised by the French Government at Arromanches on 6 June. We will also send military bands and other service detachments.

Bill Tynan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the establishment of lottery funding for "Heroes Return". I know that the veterans in Hamilton, South welcome this vital opportunity to receive financial support. There is, however, concern about what I understand to be a 21 March deadline for application to the French authorities for identity passes. A constituent who contacted me did not know about the deadline until he made his application. Will my hon. Friend ensure that publicity is given to the deadline, and that if by any chance people do not manage to meet it, everything is done to ensure that they participate in the events?

Ivor Caplin: The deadline applies only to the event on Sunday 6 June; no other events are affected. I can also reassure my hon. Friend that if his constituent telephones the Veterans Agency freephone number, 0800 169 2277, he will be given all the help he needs.

Dave Watts: I welcome today's announcement, but may I ask whether the Minister will be organising events to celebrate VE-day and VJ-day? If so, will he ensure that they take place nationwide? Many of those involved in the original events are getting old, and need to celebrate in their localities. Will there be events in places such as Merseyside?

Ivor Caplin: I am pleased to announce to the House that there will be a national celebration and commemoration of VE-day and VJ-day on Sunday 10 July 2005. The main event in London will be led by Her Majesty the Queen, but I greatly hope that other towns and cities across the UK, including my hon. Friend's constituency, will stage their own events on that day.

Sydney Chapman: Following the Adjournment debate last week, will the Minister tell the House how many of the estimated 10,000 surviving Normandy veterans expressed an interest in or plan to attend the commemoration services and parades in France during the first week of June?

Ivor Caplin: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I used the figure 5,000 to 10,000 in last week's Adjournment debate—we do not have a more precise figure—but one of the reasons for asking travel operators to register their tour parties with the Veterans Agency is to ascertain a fuller picture. Considerable consultation and discussion with the Normandy Veterans Association, with which the hon. Gentleman is involved, has taken place. The most recent meeting with its chairman took place in France on 21, 22 and 23 January this year.

Julian Brazier: I hope that, in view of the Minister's substantive first answer, it is in order to say that when the extremely welcome VJ-day celebrations take place, prominence should be given to the Indian Army. It was, after all, the largest volunteer force in history and largely broke the back of the Japanese on land. I have an interest to declare in that my grandfather served in it.

Ivor Caplin: I am certainly prepared to accept bids today in respect of who should take part on 10 July, but every consideration will be given to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Gerald Howarth: I thank the Minister for announcing in advance the VE-day and VJ-day celebrations next year, and we look forward to Her Majesty's Government being represented then by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
	The Government's organisation of what is likely to be the last D-day commemoration—it will be attended by a significant number of survivors—has, according to the spokesman for the Normandy Veterans Association today, been lamentable. Originally, the Government were going to send one junior Minister and one military band, but now they have been shamed into sending the Prime Minister and four bands. I have been told today by Leslie Frost, the chairman of the Normandy Veterans Association, that there is complete confusion about who is supposed to be organising the church service at Bayeux on the Sunday. Since nothing is more likely to sour the event than individuals who liberated Europe being turned away for lack of photo ID, will the Minister ensure that the Normandy Veterans Association has all the information for dissemination to its branches and that it will not simply be left to people themselves to find out the number of the Veterans Agency?

Ivor Caplin: It is always good to start on a Monday afternoon with a joke, and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has certainly obliged. I shall tell the House what is truly lamentable—the comments that he just made about the organisation for commemorating Normandy this year. We have made genuine arrangements with the Royal British Legion, the Normandy Veterans Association and others who will travel independently to ensure that people are secure, safe and able to visit the events that they want to attend. That includes the Bayeux church service, which I will attend.

Regimental Museums

David Chaytor: What level of financial support his Department allocated to regimental museums in the last three financial years; and what plans he has to increase such support.

Ivor Caplin: The Ministry of Defence funds staff costs of those military museums that are associated with the regiments and corps of the Army. In addition, we provide property maintenance, rates and utility costs for museums within MOD premises. As those costs are not separately identified, I am not in a position to provide a figure for the overall level of financial support. There are, however, no current plans to increase the funding for regimental museums.

David Chaytor: I should like to tell the Minister about the excellent work done by everyone associated with the Lancashire Fusiliers regimental museum in my constituency. I should also like to mention the museum's ambitious expansion plans. It is due to move to more central and more accessible premises in the near future. I ask him, as we move to the difficult and final stage of the negotiations, to take a personal interest in the project, so that the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and the people of Bury can have a museum of which they can be proud.

Ivor Caplin: I am pleased to congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts to ensure that that museum is developed. I understand that a grant of £50,000 has been provided by the Heritage Lottery Fund in anticipation of a larger grant. I am always interested to know about the progress that we are making on regimental museums, and when I am next in the north-west, I shall give him the chance to show me around the museum in his constituency.

Jenny Tonge: The Minister might remember that I wrote to him recently about the Medloc train, which was used to transport soldiers going home on leave across Europe during the second world war, and which many of them remember very fondly. Will he reconsider his decision not to provide funds for the National Army Museum to preserve a small part of that train, perhaps its restaurant car, as a memorial of that splendid effort during the second world war?

Ivor Caplin: The National Army Museum, as the hon. Lady well knows, is a royal charter body and a registered charity that already receives the bulk of its running costs, including a purchase grant, via a grant in aid from the Ministry of Defence. Collections policy, however, is a matter for and responsibility of the museum's council. From the number of letters that I have signed on the matter, I am aware of the Medloc campaign on that carriage, in which hon. Members of both Houses have been involved. I have spoken to the museum, which advises me that it has done its best to respond constructively, but that it does not want to acquire the carriage for its collection or to display it in the National Army Museum.

George Foulkes: I congratulate the Minister on his superb answers, not only on museums but on anniversaries and Arctic convoys. I know that he and I would be ruled out of order if we were to discuss Tory policies, but let us just suppose that our Chancellor contemplated adopting the policies of the shadow Chancellor. Would all these matters not be put in jeopardy?

Ivor Caplin: I always welcome my right hon. Friend's contribution, and I certainly share his views on the shadow Chancellor's policies.

Robert Key: The museum of the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment, the finest regimental museum in the country, receives no direct financial assistance from the Ministry of Defence but has benefited from the Treasury's gift aid scheme. However, that is about to be removed from museums, including regimental museums. What representations has the Minister made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the impact on regimental museums of that mingy treatment? If he has made none, will he do so?

Ivor Caplin: I thought that gift aid was a policy of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced by the Labour Government. However, I shall certainly look at the point that the hon. Gentleman makes on regimental museums.

Iraq

Claire Ward: What recent steps the Department has taken to assist the post-war reconstruction of Iraq.

Joan Humble: What steps the Department has taken to assist the post-war reconstruction of Iraq.

Geoff Hoon: Our principal role in Iraq is to help to provide the conditions for reconstruction. A crucial aspect of that involves developing Iraq's own security capabilities. That is why I announced last December the deployment of an additional infantry battalion and two additional platoons of Royal Military Police to Iraq. They and other experts are helping to train Iraqis in modern, accountable security methods that respect human rights and international law. We aim to give the Iraqis the ability to defend their country against terror, violence and crime. Over 100,000 Iraqi security personnel are now operating across the country.
	We also contribute directly to reconstruction. The armed forces, working with the Department for International Development, with the coalition provisional authority and with Iraqis, have opened supply routes such as the rail link between Basra and Umm Qasr, repaired key bridges and strengthened vital transport links. They have restored clean water provision to Umm Qasr and most of Basra, and helped to refurbish infrastructure, hospitals and schools.

Claire Ward: Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that he has no proposals to reduce the funding available to our military while they are in Iraq reconstructing essential facilities? Will he prioritise the reconnection of electricity and water supplies, which are essential for the Iraqi people?

Geoff Hoon: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I look forward to the Conservatives offering a similar assurance. This Government's current budget for defence represents the largest planned increase in defence spending in more than 20 years, in stark contrast to the cuts proposed by the shadow Chancellor, of which the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) apparently had no notice at all. So far as other reconstruction projects are concerned, I expect the British armed forces to continue their excellent work in providing basic essentials to the people of southern Iraq. They do that job with extreme professionalism—a professionalism that would be likely to be damaged by the cuts proposed by the Conservatives.

Joan Humble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, along with other Lancashire Members, I met representatives of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment when it returned from Basra last year? We learned that it had been involved in reconstructing 30 local schools and two orphanages, that it had worked to train the local police support unit in Basra, that it had maintained fuel supplies and much more. Will he therefore join me in congratulating the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, in particular, and the other units that have been doing such vital work in reconstructing Iraq?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I was able to see for myself the excellent work done by the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. It has made a significant contribution to the stability of Basra, where it is involved in patrolling the city as well as planning and organising the training of the Basra police support unit, as my hon. Friend mentioned. It is also practically engaged in a number of reconstruction projects on the ground.

Paul Keetch: While I of course acknowledge the excellent work done by our forces in the reconstruction of Iraq, does the Secretary of State agree that continuing concerns at home about the legality of the action in Iraq must be affecting the morale of the forces involved in that work? Will he tell the House precisely whether he knew of the anxieties of the chiefs of staff about the legality of the conflict before it began? Did he pass those concerns on to the Prime Minister?

Geoff Hoon: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I much prefer to rely on the words of the then Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Boyce—as he is now—when he made it plain over the weekend that he had had none of the doubts apparently reported in the newspapers. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Liberal Democrats prefer to believe the bad news that they read in the newspapers rather than the good news from members of our armed forces.

Keith Simpson: The whole House appreciates the heroic work of British personnel engaged in the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. Nevertheless, the Government have some questions to answer about the slow preparation for such an eventuality. Does the Secretary of State believe that the failure in planning was due to the delay in obtaining a definitive opinion on the legality of war from the Attorney-General? The Ministry of Defence had to work closely with the Department for International Development, and it still does. Does the Secretary of State believe that the then Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), was dilatory in her preparations for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq because of her doubts about the Attorney-General's opinion?

Geoff Hoon: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman believes that cutting £1.5 billion from the defence budget would help preparations, because that is his policy—[Interruption.] That is what he comes to the House believing in. As recently as 6 January, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex said:
	"you can't do defence on the cheap."
	He also said that he would be "lobbying hard" to secure more funds for defence. We now know the result of his lobbying. We know that he has lobbied so successfully that the shadow Chancellor proposes to cut £1.5 billion from defence—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Shona McIsaac.

Heroes Return

Shona McIsaac: If he will make a statement on "Heroes Return".

Ivor Caplin: "Heroes Return" is the central element of the New Opportunities Fund's "Veterans Reunited" programme to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the end of the second world war. This lottery-funded programme will help to ensure that all generations of United Kingdom residents can commemorate the 60th anniversary together, with events both at home and abroad, and is part of wider cross-government work involving the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Department for Education and Skills.

Shona McIsaac: It is clear from other questions that have been asked in the House today that all hon. Members welcome this excellent initiative, which is proving very popular with our veterans. Given its popularity, will my hon. Friend consider extending the scheme to the veterans of other conflicts, such as the Korean war or Suez, so that our veterans could go there and wear their medals with pride?

Ivor Caplin: "Heroes Return" is a two-year, lottery-funded programme commemorating the 60th anniversary of the end of the second world war. I know of the importance of Korea to hon. Members and to the British Korean Veterans Association, members of which I visited at the arboretum recently; I was also with a number of veterans in Korea last summer. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's bid as the first for an extension to the scheme. I will have to consider it and talk to the lottery operator when the time is right.

Julian Lewis: Lottery grants are often controversial, but the Minister will agree that this one will achieve universal acclaim across the Chamber and throughout the country. In considering the grants made and the representations given at veterans' events, will he bear it in mind that, two days before the heroes return to Normandy this June, other heroes will be returning to Rome because it will be the 60th anniversary of its liberation? Will he bear it in mind that those who are entitled today to wear the Italy star belong to a force that lost 45,000 British and Commonwealth servicemen? Is there any prospect of a royal and prime ministerial presence in Rome two days before the same dignitaries go to Normandy?

Ivor Caplin: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on the last point. However, in April, it will be the 60th anniversary of Kohima in Burma, and in May, it will be the 60th anniversary of Monte Cassino. Both events take place before the D-day commemoration. It is important to emphasise that "Heroes Return" is about all events worldwide and does not support only veterans going to events or their carers. It is also an educational project that allows veterans to commit to regaling their stories and legacy to young people in our society so that we have a living history of the great sacrifices many of them made.

Andrew MacKinlay: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Andrew Mackay. [Laughter.]

Andrew MacKinlay: I am the good-looking one.
	Will the Minister consider how the many thousands of volunteers from the Republic of Ireland who served in the British armed forces during the war and those of whom Winston Churchill made special mention in his "Victory in Europe" broadcast can be included in the scheme? There were thousands of them, they were outstanding and every single one of them was a volunteer. They need to be included in "Heroes Return", in the absence of an Irish delegation here today.

Ivor Caplin: I never for one moment thought that my hon. Friend was the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay).

Dennis Skinner: He has not been under the sun lamp.

Ivor Caplin: I shall leave that comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) alone, Mr. Speaker.
	The lottery money amounts to £10 million and, under the rules of the national lottery agreed by this House, we can only give grants to UK citizens. Those veterans resident in Northern Ireland will qualify. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that those resident in the Republic will qualify unless they are UK citizens.

Aircraft Carriers

Robert Syms: If he will make a statement on the future of the aircraft carrier programme.

Adam Ingram: The future carrier programme is currently in stage 3 of the assessment phase. Design work is progressing, as are discussions on the alliance strategy, which remains our preferred approach to delivering the capability to our time and cost targets. Our target in-service dates remain 2012 and 2015.

Robert Syms: There has been a lot of debate, certainly in the press, about the size, capability and cost of this welcome project. Originally, British Aerospace and the Ministry of Defence hoped to agree a firm design for the project by this April. Is the Minister holding to that April date or will it be missed?

Adam Ingram: Work is progressing on the assessment phase and is due to continue until spring this year. At that point, Ministers will consider proposals on the overall CVF—carrier vessel future—programme and make a decision on when to proceed to the next phases, demonstration and manufacturing, of the project.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the two carriers not only add to the defence capacity of the United Kingdom but will also give a great boost to the regional economies in areas such as the north-east? Can he give the House an assurance that those orders will not be cut, as is being suggested in some quarters of the Opposition?

Adam Ingram: We have no plans to cut the programme. My hon. Friend may be referring to others who are developing programmes that would have such an implication were they ever to get into power. A cut of £1.5 billion for defence might mean only one aircraft carrier, but if there were two carriers, such a cut would mean fewer aircraft or a smaller Army; it is not for me to answer on what others are saying about their future programme. We shall continue with the project and my hon. Friend is right that it means a lot for the north-east, the Clyde and the rest of the UK shipbuilding industry.

John Wilkinson: Is not the programme crucial to the fleet, which already faces a grievous air defence gap between the elimination of the Sea Harriers from service in about 2005 and the earliest date for entry into service of carrier-embarked joint strike fighters in 2012? Can the Minister assure the House that there will be no further slippage either in defining the design or in the time scale for entry into service? If that were to occur, he would open up the fleet to exceptional vulnerability.

Adam Ingram: We have had a lot of debate about the Sea Harriers and it has been explained time and again why that military judgment was made. The upgrade would have been very expensive and there were also technical difficulties. On protection of the fleet, we have also said that the highest likelihood is that we would always be in coalition with our allies, so we should have that combined defence. The hon. Gentleman makes another important point, which is about the future size of the fleet. Perhaps he should ask the shadow Chancellor about the implications for defence if £1.5 billion were cut from defence expenditure. There is an old adage, "If the enemy isn't in front of you, he's behind you." The hon. Gentleman's enemy is sitting in front of him.

Brian Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that no progress will be made on the construction of that programme until, before it goes to the gateway, every risk reduction strategy has been developed, it meets the criteria set down under smart acquisition and it is not in danger of becoming another legacy project, similar to those we inherited from the previous Administration, which went over-time and over-cost?

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to ensure that we do everything we can to reduce risk in the programme, but of course, we are facing inherited programmes where such sophisticated planning was not undertaken early enough. The Government have learned lessons from that and we shall do everything we can to ensure that those elements of the project are adhered to. My hon. Friend is right to raise the matter as he did.

Nicholas Soames: May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to see the Secretary of State back and in such good form after his political near-death experience? Can the Minister assure the House that the main gate approval date for the future carrier programme will not slip further? When will he actually be able to make an announcement on the programme and will agreement with the contractors be reached by April?

Adam Ingram: I should welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box; we had a sweep running on whether he would turn up to ask a question as he is clearly embarrassed by his non-involvement in the development of his party's future spending programmes, if the Conservatives were ever to get into power.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the future of the carrier programme. I set it out in my answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). The in-service date is still as set down and, as I said in answer to a previous question, we have to ensure that we are smart and are very specific about the way in which we develop the programme. Every announcement on the details of the next phase of the project will be made on time, when we are ready to give the information. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) should not expect anything other than that from us.

Nicholas Soames: I thank the Minister for his concern for my welfare, but Conservative Members are entirely satisfied with the shadow Chancellor's robust and assured commitment to defence.
	Is the Minister aware that any delay, leaving this country with no aircraft carriers at all in the early years of the next decade, will result in a serious gap in our expeditionary capability?

Adam Ingram: That obviously has to be worked against, which is why we have a decommissioning timetable for the three current carriers that is consistent with the in-service date of the new carriers. No one can predict with certainty 10 years ahead, but the reality is that the programme will deliver what we have already announced and improve immeasurably this country's expeditionary war-fighting resources.

Lindsay Hoyle: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his and the Government's commitment to the two carriers, but will he assure me that he will not rule out different options for different types of aircraft using this platform around the world? Will he keep the options open for the future?

Adam Ingram: I suspect that my hon. Friend is asking about the modernisation of Typhoon. We have already ruled that out and have no plans to change our mind.

Defence Medical Services

Peter Viggers: If he will make a statement on the recruitment and retention of Defence Medical Services staff.

Ivor Caplin: I am pleased to say that recruitment to the Defence Medical Services remains in line with our expectations, and with anticipated better retention than for some years. Over the next four years, an increasing number of consultants and nurses will complete training, which will help to alleviate some of the shortages that have been experienced in the past. Retention of experienced medical personnel, especially in key specialist areas, remains the focus of management action, and we recognise that both pay and non-pay measures have a part to play in supporting the future development of the Defence Medical Services, which did, and continue to do, a first-class job in the Gulf for our armed forces.

Peter Viggers: Will the Minister confirm that the main conclusion of the Lawrence committee in 1998 was that the Defence Medical Services should move from the Royal Hospital Haslar to a new centre that was later identified as a 22-acre site at Selly Oak, Birmingham? Will he confirm that £200 million was allocated to fund the new centre, but that has now been withdrawn? Does that not effectively mean the collapse of the strategy set out by the Lawrence committee? Will he review that committee's decision, because my constituents and many others in the Defence Medical Services cannot believe that the Government intend to close the superb facilities at the Royal Hospital Haslar?

Ivor Caplin: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes considerable interest in these matters. In fact, I think that he was a member of the Select Committee in the 1992 to 1997 Parliament that dealt with many of the defence medical issues of the time. I know that he recently visited the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham. We remain absolutely committed to delivering a military medical centre of excellence at that establishment in Birmingham. We are pursuing a number of options to ensure that the centre continues to develop to meet the needs of the Defence Medical Services in the future.

Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend will know that a recent report from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body recognised certain shortages in nursing. How does the Department intend to tackle that? Will he join me in recognising the contribution made by staff at establishments such as the Royal Naval hospital not only to our forces in the Iraq conflict but to our local communities?

Ivor Caplin: I certainly join my hon. Friend in welcoming the key contribution that defence medical staff make—both abroad and here at home. I very much enjoyed meeting recently some of the members of the Defence Medical Services at Devonport in her constituency. We are going to introduce golden hellos for nurses, especially in specific areas in response to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body's recommendations. Those categories are: operating theatre nurses; accident and emergency; orthopaedic; intensive care nurses; burns; registered mental nurses; and registered general nurses. I believe that that will be an important contribution to the ongoing success of the Defence Medical Services.

European Defence Capabilities

Desmond Swayne: What changes have been introduced regarding the implementation of the EU headline goal; and if he will make a statement.

Geoff Hoon: No changes have been introduced to the implementation of the Helsinki headline goal. A successor to the headline goal with a target date of 2010 is now under discussion. This will capture continued progress on the European capabilities action plan, the development of European rapid response capabilities, and the European security strategy. This goal will place a new emphasis on interoperability, deployability and sustainability as its major themes. We anticipate an announcement being made at the European Council in June.

Desmond Swayne: I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. What assurance can the Secretary of State give the House regarding any commitment that we might make to the European rapid reaction forces given that defence statistics published last year show a fall in our trained strength of some 12,000, despite increased commitments? Will the reserves make up the gap?

Geoff Hoon: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not coming to the House to support enthusiastically our efforts to improve European military capabilities, not least because of the cuts in military capabilities that would have to be carried through in the unlikely event of his party being elected to power. Not least of those would be the equivalent of a 40,000 cut in armed forces personnel if a £1.5 billion cut in the defence budget were made. That is a matter that our European—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I expect the Secretary of State to answer the question. That was not a proper answer.

Geoff Hoon: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mike Gapes.

Mike Gapes: The Secretary of State referred—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If Mr. Skinner has any objection, he can always leave the Chamber. [Interruption.] He can always leave the Chamber; there is no problem.

Mike Gapes: The Secretary of State referred to the importance of interoperability. In that context, when SFOR in Bosnia is handed over to the EUFOR before the end of this year, will he assure us that that will be able to operate as effectively as SFOR, and that national caveats, which are currently taken by some of our European NATO allies—especially Germany—will not impair the work of our forces and the important security role that they currently play, and will continue to play, in Bosnia?

Geoff Hoon: If NATO decides that the SFOR mission has been completed successfully, the United Kingdom has indicated its willingness to lead a successor EU operation. It is obviously crucial, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, that effective military contributions are made by our EU allies, and those matters are already the subject of discussion.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Secretary of State give me a proper answer? Will he make it absolutely clear that there will not be any wasteful duplication and that there will be no common control of any nuclear assets?

Geoff Hoon: I can give that assurance. That is precisely why the Government have consistently supported the development of European military capability on a European scale and why it is so difficult for us to understand why the hon. Gentleman's party has so consistently opposed that. It is to avoid the duplication of military capabilities that such a coherent strategy is required.

Nigel Beard: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the warning given by President Putin's special envoy last week against NATO stationing forces in the Baltic states, despite the recent accession of those countries to NATO? Is it likely that that is linked to Russian unwillingness to ratify the conventional armed forces in Europe treaty?

Geoff Hoon: It is important to emphasise that once the Baltic states fully become members of NATO, they will be in exactly the same position as any other member of NATO as far as the deployment of NATO forces is concerned.

Defence Industry

David Cairns: What contributions the defence industry made to the UK economy in the last year for which figures are available.

Adam Ingram: The UK defence industry is a major contributor to the economic well-being of the UK, employing directly and indirectly around 300,000 people and turning over some £15 billion per annum. It also, of course, plays a vital role in providing our armed forces with the equipment that they need.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in my constituency the defence sector is incredibly important, both in terms of those providing capability at Coulport, Faslane and the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service Clyde, and for those who work in defence manufacturing in the upper Clyde shipyards, among other places. Does that not demonstrate the importance of defence spending throughout the country, and highlight the fact that any reduction in that spending would not only put the defence of the realm at risk but have a devastating effect on UK plc?

Adam Ingram: Absolutely. My hon. Friend will be only too well aware of the impact that the defence sector has in Scotland. The figure that I gave was for the whole United Kingdom, but the Ministry of Defence has placed almost 2,000 contracts in Scotland, with a total value of about £2 billion—slightly more than the amount of the cuts envisaged by the Conservative party.

Vincent Cable: As there is a need to maintain an absolutely clear distinction between our competitive, efficient defence producers and the consumer—that is, the taxpayer—why have the Government given permission for the retiring head of defence procurement to work, within months, for one of the leading defence contractors?

Adam Ingram: Because, I can only assume, that person conformed to the regulations and rules that apply to those in such circumstances.

Iraq

Tam Dalyell: What assessment he has made of the effect on retention of service personnel of the recruitment of British soldiers by security firms in Iraq.

Adam Ingram: We are not able to assess the effect that the potential recruitment of soldiers by security firms in Iraq will have on retention, because soldiers are not required to provide details of their future employment when they leave the Army. However, serving personnel are normally required to give 12 months' notice of their intention to leave, so we are not expecting such recruitment to have had a significant impact.

Tam Dalyell: As it is the considered view of Correlli Barnett, writing in The Spectator this week, and that of many other thoughtful military commentators, that British troops will be stuck in Iraq for years to come, should not some thought be given to the problem of the haemorrhaging of highly skilled trained personnel to the infinitely more lucrative jobs that security firms are offering?

Adam Ingram: The reality is somewhat different from what my hon. Friend is trying to present. The current recruitment and retention measures that we have introduced for the regular Army are starting to turn the 15-year downward trend round, and on 1 January this year the whole Army strength stood at 103,840, an increase of about 2,000 personnel in the last 12 months. That seems to contradict those who talk about a haemorrhage out of the armed forces; on current trends, the very reverse seems to be happening.

Army Recruitment and Retention

Bob Russell: When he expects to fill all vacancies in the Army.

Ivor Caplin: The current requirement for the Army is 106,730 personnel. The Department's target is to achieve manning balance by the end of 2005 and to maintain it thereafter.

Bob Russell: I thank the Minister for that answer, because if it is true, this will be the first time for many years that any Government have been able to fill all the places that the Army requires. With that in mind, does the Minister agree that, considering the footprint of the regiments of the British Army and their natural recruitment areas, one way of the filling the gap would be to enable regiments that currently recruit at full strength to form an additional battalion? The Minister will be aware that the nine counties that recruit into the Royal Anglian Regiment could comfortably fill all the places that a reinstated 3rd Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment would provide. Will he therefore look into the possibility of reinstating that battalion?

Ivor Caplin: I have to put the hon. Gentleman right about the Royal Anglian Regiment, because both its battalions are now slightly under strength, although that does not affect their ability to undertake their current roles. We expect both battalions to reach their establishment in the near future, once personnel currently undergoing basic training are incorporated into the regular Army. As for the future, we made our plans for future Army structures clear in the defence White Paper.

Gordon Prentice: But may I have an assurance that there will be no forced amalgamations of regiments that fully recruit up to strength? My hon. Friend paid tribute to the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, which has always fully recruited. It would be a tragedy if that regiment were amalgamated yet again.

Ivor Caplin: Obviously we are considering all the options that were before the House in the defence White Paper. I understand that a debate on the White Paper was asked for at business questions last week, and no doubt we will discuss it shortly. Proper consideration and debate of many of the issues will be carried out then. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that if changes are needed, hon. Members will be consulted before they come about.

Andrew Mitchell: Many Opposition Members are concerned at the apparent complacency of Government Front Benchers when it comes to manning figures. Not only did we hear about the undermanning of the Territorial Army in response to my question last Defence Question Time but we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) today about the serious undermanning in Defence Medical Services. We now hear that the armed forces are undermanned by up to 5,000. Is it not time that the Government took those matters more seriously and came up with new initiatives to plug the gaps?

Ivor Caplin: This Government are certainly producing new initiatives, in particular in relation to the Defence Medical Services. The Defence Committee's third report "Defence Medical Services", published in February 1997—the hon. Gentleman was a member of that Committee—says:
	"We conclude that staff shortages in the Defence Medical Services are so serious that it is not clear whether it will recover."
	Under this Government, with the innovations that we made, the Defence Medical Services is recovering and our retention is good. That will always be the case for our armed forces. After a 15-year downward trend, retention is on an upward trend for the first time.

Service Personnel (Job-finding Support)

John Robertson: What steps his Department is taking to help servicemen and women in moving from the armed forces to civilian occupations.

Ivor Caplin: Those servicemen and women who have currently served at least three years in the armed forces are eligible for job-finding support when they leave. This support is provided under the career transition partnership contract placed by the Ministry of Defence in 1998. RFEA Ltd.—the regular forces employment agency—and the officers' association are also involved with much of the job-finding work under the career transition partnership contract. While all discharged personnel remain on the career transition partnership's books, for two years after discharge, the RFEA and officers association offer ex-service personnel support for the rest of their working careers.

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but does he remember that on Second Reading of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill he told the House that nine out of 10 armed servicemen and women found employment on leaving? That means that 10 per cent.—well above the national average for unemployment—do not get jobs. Does he agree that that is not good enough? Will he assure me that the Government will do their best to find jobs for that 10 per cent. of men and women who fight for their country on a daily basis?

Ivor Caplin: I certainly share my hon. Friend's concerns. Do I remember the Second Reading and Committee stage of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill? Of course I do; it is fresh in my memory, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) will recognise.
	As I said, although only service leavers who have served at least three years are eligible for resettlement provision, from 1 April the early service leavers initiative will be introduced into the new contract for career transition partnerships for all members of our armed forces.

Crispin Blunt: First, I suggest that the Under-Secretary tell the Secretary of State's special advisers to use a formulation other than
	"What steps his Department is taking"
	for the handout questions, because it is a little obvious. Secondly, on the small number of veterans who have fallen into, or are in danger of falling into, social exclusion, can he tell the House what proportion that represents?

Ivor Caplin: I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about in relation to "handout questions".
	The figure that I used before is that 90 per cent. of our armed forces leavers get good employment within six months of leaving the armed forces. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) explained, it is the 10 per cent. who are of considerable concern to me as the veterans Minister and to the Government as a whole. As I said, we are doing a lot of work on the transition issues that are related to that 10 per cent. by working with the voluntary and other sectors to reduce that number as speedily as possible.

European Defence Capabilities

Roger Casale: If he will make a statement on measures to improve defence capabilities of EU member states.

Geoff Hoon: The European Union is working on a number of programmes to improve the defence capabilities of member states. These include the European capability action plan, the establishment of a European defence capabilities agency, the development of European rapid response capability including the battlegroups concept and the drafting of a new headline goal. We fully support all these initiatives.

Roger Casale: I am chairman of the all-party British-Italian parliamentary group, which, along with other hon. Members, has sought to encourage the commitment of successive Italian Governments to standing alongside British troops in peacekeeping missions in areas as diverse as the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq, where losses of troops and police have been sustained. It is clearly in the national interest to build bilateral and multilateral defence co-operation in Europe. Will my right hon. Friend take every possible step to encourage other European countries to increase their spending on defence and their defence capabilities to allow them to work with us on the most important peacekeeping missions?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations. The British Government's policy is to ensure that we encourage other countries to develop their military capabilities not only in our bilateral relationships but in our multilateral relationships, which not only benefits autonomous EU operations but is a crucial contribution that European nations can make to NATO.

Efficiency Savings

David Taylor: What recent submissions he has received about the potential for efficiency-driven savings in the defence budget; and if he will make a statement.

Adam Ingram: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Ministry of Defence spending review 2002 settlement represented the largest sustained increase in defence spending plans for 20 years. That means there will be year-on-year real increases in defence spending plans until at least 2005–06. Nevertheless, the MOD continuously seeks to increase its efficiency. We regularly receive advice, suggestions and submissions on how we might do that, from both within and outside Government.

David Taylor: When gimlet-eyed management consultants have been tasked by the Government to seek efficiency-driven savings elsewhere in the public sector, their recommendations have often been deeply harmful to the quality of service provided. Will the Minister reassure the House that he will never listen to the siren voices of those who would jeopardise the efficiency and quality of our armed forces by implementing cuts that would aggregate to more than £4 million a day?

Adam Ingram: I echo that sentiment entirely.

Peter Pike: As an ex-Royal Marine, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that multi-functional forces such as the Royal Marines provide best value and that their future will be safeguarded by this Government in the years ahead?

Adam Ingram: Last week, I was with the Royal Marines in Norway and saw at first hand the tremendous cold-weather training undertaken by those exceptional soldiers. Some 2,300 Royal Marines are there, 1,500 of whom have never experienced cold-weather training. At the end of their eight-week training period, they will be fighting fit to carry on their tremendous recent work in Afghanistan and Iraq—there is no threat to their future.

Iraq

Alistair Burt: What recent assessment he has made of the security of British troops stationed in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

Geoff Hoon: Force protection has the highest priority for UK forces. Commanders on the ground employ appropriate force protection measures in accordance with threat assessments. The security situation is under constant review and commanders adapt protection measures to reflect changing circumstances.

Alistair Burt: In order to reassure my constituents serving in Iraq and their relatives, it is surely necessary for the Secretary of State to clear up discrepancies about the recent past. Why did servicemen tell "Channel 4 News" that, in the face of anticipated attacks from weapons of mass destruction they were given nuclear, biological and chemical protection kits that were routinely incomplete and gas mask filters that were out of date? As that is contrary to assurances that the Secretary of State gave to the House on 6 February 2003, will he clear up the discrepancy, and appreciate how such unresolved discrepancies affect current confidence?

Geoff Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a series of investigations into the difficulties that certain individuals experienced in the course of operations in Iraq. They need to be put in the context of the overall success of the logistic effort found by the National Audit Office and in our own investigations, but obviously we take seriously any of the problems that were highlighted. If we had precise details of the particular circumstances of the individuals in question, we could investigate them properly.

Denison Barracks

David Rendel: If he will make a statement on the future of the Denison barracks.

Ivor Caplin: A study of the future of the Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence Agency's estate, including Denison barracks, was initiated in 2003. As part of the wider examination of the defence estate, this study remains ongoing.

David Rendel: Is the Minister aware that there have been a number of rumours flying around my constituency as to what would become of Denison barracks, were the current operations to cease there? Will he assure my constituents that a decision will be taken in the shortest possible time so that the rumours can be laid to rest?

Ivor Caplin: It may not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I am not aware of those rumours, but I can assure him that we will keep the matter under careful review. If there are to be any changes at Denison barracks, I will make sure that I come and speak to him.

Points of Order

Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Wednesday, the First Minister in Scotland made a statement to the Scottish Parliament saying that he had reached an agreement with the Home Secretary that would enable overseas graduates at Scottish universities to be allowed to stay in Scotland longer under visa concessions designed to boost Scotland's dwindling population. The effect of that provision would be to introduce a system whereby there would be a change to the immigration rules in Scotland that would not apply across the rest of the United Kingdom. That proposal has not been put to the House in an oral or written statement. I seek your guidance as to the propriety of announcing such a major policy change without the House being informed in any way of what is going on. I may add that the First Minister went on to say that further such changes would be proposed in future, and again no reference has been made by the Home Secretary in the House or elsewhere to the proposals. I seek your guidance.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but Home Office Ministers are present, and I am sure that the point of order will have been heard and note taken.

Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As chairman of the court of the university of Edinburgh, may I say that this is a very serious matter? With respect, it is not a matter for just one Department, but one that raises deep constitutional issues that must be hammered out in some forum, and not by just a single Minister.

Mr. Speaker: As I said to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), this is not a matter for the Chair. The comments of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will have been heard.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move,
	That—
	(1) Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Programme Order of 17th December 2003 shall be omitted;
	(2) proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be taken at today's sitting in the order shown in the following table, and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.
	
		TABLE
		
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Amendments relating to Clauses 1 and 2, Clause 6, Clause 15, Clauses 3 to 5. 1 hour 15 minutes after commencement of proceedings on consideration. 
			 Amendments relating to Clauses 7 to 10. 2 hours 30 minutes after commencement of proceedings on consideration. 
			 Amendments relating to Clause 11, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 12 and 13, Schedule 3, Clause 14, Clauses 16 to 29, Schedule 4, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on consideration. 9 p.m. 
			 Third Reading 10 p.m. 
		
	
	I understand that discussions have taken place between the parties concerned and that there is broad agreement with the programme motion. We are all anxious to start the debate on these important matters.
	Question put and agreed to. Orders of the Day

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill

[Relevant Document: Second Report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 211-I, on Asylum and Immigration Appeals.]
	As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Entering United Kingdom without passport

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 2, line 4, leave out from 'if' to 'he' in line 5 and insert
	'at a leave or asylum interview'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 3, in page 2, line 5 leave out 'in the United Kingdom' and insert
	'at a United Kingdom port or airport'.
	No. 1, in page 2, line 5, leave out from 'him' to end of line 7 and insert 'a document which'.
	Government amendment No. 49.
	No. 2, in page 2, line 11 leave out from 'him' to end of line 12 and insert 'a document which'.
	Government amendments Nos. 50 and 51.
	No. 99, in page 2, line 30 at end insert—
	'(4A) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsections (1) and (2) above, and relies on a defence under subsections (3) and (4) above, if the person adduces evidence which is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to the matter, the court or jury shall assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 52, 34 and 53.
	No. 101, in page 3, line 11, leave out second 'and'.
	No. 100, in page 3, line 14, at end insert
	'and
	'(c) an offence to which section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) applies.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 54 and 55.
	No. 102, in page 3, line 23, at end insert—
	'(11) The Secretary of State shall, before commencement of this section, and thereafter from time to time as he may decide necessary, publish detailed guidance on the interpretation and implementation of section 2 of this Act.
	(12) Guidance issued under subsection (11) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Beverley Hughes: I shall speak to Government amendments Nos. 48 to 55 and 34, and I intend to resist Opposition amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 99, 100, 101 and 102. We are dealing with clause 2 and the offence of deliberately disposing of or destroying documents.
	I want first to deal with amendment No. 3 and Government amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50, which address the linked matters of confining the clause 2 offence to ports, finding a better description of when the offence is committed and allowing a period of three days for in-country applicants to produce their documents.
	Concerns were expressed in Committee about the definition of "first interview". Another concern was that someone should not be caught by the offence if, for example, their passport was mistakenly left at home—that was part of the reason why the Opposition tabled their amendments. I have considered those concerns carefully and have sought to address them in Government amendments Nos. 48 to 55. I shall set out briefly what they do and why I tabled them. As I mentioned in our debate on clause 2 in Committee, we expect that the criminal offence will in practice be used most against people who arrive at ports without documents. In those circumstances, there will rarely be an innocent explanation for lack of documentation; for people arriving in-country, however, there may be more reasons why they no longer have appropriate documentation. As was acknowledged in Committee, cases of destruction or disposal of documents by people applying in-country—for example, at the asylum screening unit—should not be excluded from the scope of the offence.
	Members who served on the Committee will recall that I used as an example an issue that we are investigating at the moment. We believe and have evidence to suggest that people already given refugee status in other European countries are using those documents to come in straightforwardly through our channels at port, and then turning up at the asylum screening unit without those documents and claiming asylum. I do not think that any hon. Member would want us to be unable to take action on such behaviour.
	To retain the coverage of both in-country and port claims in the offence, while not penalising people who, for example, have left their passport at home, Government amendment No. 50 allows in-country applicants three days to return with a document, should they not have it with them when making their application. While we expect people to realise that they need to bring their immigration documents, we accept both that that is not always the case and that people who were aware of the need for such documentation will sometimes forget it all the same. We do not want to penalise people who do not seek to frustrate our immigration controls and are willing to co-operate with the authorities. However, if the offence is to act as a deterrent, it must bite on both in-country and port cases. I hope that Government amendment No. 50 will reassure Members that concerns expressed in Committee have been dealt with.
	There was also concern that someone could, under clause 2, avoid the offence if they had a passport when they were interviewed, but subsequently disposed of it. For port cases, there was concern that if someone was, for example, asked for a passport by a surveillance officer, that could be construed as a first interview. If so, someone who destroyed the passport between showing it to a surveillance officer and the immigration control interview might not be caught by the offence. For in-country cases, a person might be able to avoid the offence by claiming to have been interviewed at port. That could be relied on mainly, although not necessarily exclusively, by people granted leave on entry.
	To address that problem, the term "first interview" has been replaced by
	"at a leave or asylum interview",
	which is to be defined by subsection (10) to cover any interview in which a person seeks leave to enter or remain and, so far as they are not already covered, claims that removal would breach our obligations under the refugee convention or the European convention on human rights. That ensures that someone cannot avoid committing the offence by saying they have been interviewed previously and were in possession of a passport at that time.
	Government amendment No. 34 and amendments Nos. 100 and 101 relate to article 31 of the refugee convention. In Committee, I said that the reasonable excuse contained in clause 2 provided for the protection offered under article 31, but I understood that that was an important issue, so I undertook to consider the way in which the defence, as set out in clause 2, would operate to ensure that it did not have the unintended effect of penalising any refugee who was protected by article 31.
	In particular, we have looked at subsection (5)(b), which rules out as a reasonable excuse three situations in which a person has deliberately destroyed or disposed of documents. We have concluded that the first two situations require no amendment, as there can never be a justifiable reason for a person to dispose of a passport to delay the handling of their claim or to enhance its chances of success. The third situation is where a person disposes of a passport at the behest of an agent or facilitator. In the great majority of cases, disposing of a passport for that reason is unacceptable, and it is important that clause 2 sends out the clear message that that is so.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that there was a large influx of Chinese immigrants into my constituency during the summer? Many were illegal, and many of their passports and other documents had been destroyed by the people traffickers—the triads and snakehead gangs—who had imported them into this country at great expense to them and their families. What is her view on that?

Beverley Hughes: The offence contained in the clause is designed to address precisely that kind of behaviour, so that we can send out the message that, if people destroy their documents, even at the behest of a facilitator or an agent, they will be liable to prosecution, except in the very special circumstance that I shall outline. Although some members of the Committee expressed concern that that would penalise the person who entered the country illegally, not the facilitator, we can already take strong measures against facilitators.
	If we are to change people's behaviour, we need parallel measures that we can use to try to ensure that people do not destroy their documents. As hon. Members will know, as well leaving us unable to identify people at the point at which they make their claim, the destruction of documents causes great difficulty in returning people to their own country if their claims fail. Without documentation is it very difficult to satisfy other countries that such people are indeed their own nationals, and one can understand why. We would feel the same if we were asked to take people back. We would want evidence, which is very difficult to supply without documentation.

Hilton Dawson: I recognise the progress that has been made, but children who come to this country may have destroyed their documents at the behest of people who may well have exerted all sorts of force and influence on them. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the best interests of those children are being recognised in the amendments and Bill that she is proposing?

Beverley Hughes: I assure my hon. Friend that the authorities—the immigration service, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service—will take such issues into account in operating the offence. I do not want to exclude children specifically from the Bill because that would provide a perverse incentive for people to declare themselves to be under 18. I can assure him—we had this discussion in Committee—that the guidance published for the authorities will make particular reference to that point.
	In the great majority of cases, as I have said, disposing of a passport, even at the behest of an agent or facilitator is unacceptable, but I accept that there may be rare cases in which refugees are so vulnerable, possibly traumatised and dependent on the facilitator for ensuring safe flight from persecution in their country that it would be unreasonable to expect them to ignore the facilitator's instructions. In those rare cases, refugees could argue that they had good cause for no longer having their passport, thus meriting the protection of article 31 of the convention.
	Government amendment No. 34 will modify subsection (5)(b)(iii), so that disposal on the advice or instruction of a facilitator is unacceptable,
	"unless in the circumstances of the case it is unreasonable to expect non-compliance with the instructions or advice."
	We have introduced the amendment primarily with refugees in mind, but Members will notice that we have not limited it to such persons. We have done so to ensure that we cater for the rare situation in which particularly vulnerable people can satisfy us that, despite their not being refugees, they still could not be expected to ignore instructions from their agent. I expect that exception to be relevant in only a very limited number of cases, but it is nevertheless important to have that safeguard in order to ensure that we comply with our obligations under the refugee convention and to cater for other exceptional cases.
	Clause 2, as amended, has two safeguards that ensure that the offence is not inconsistent with a proper interpretation of the protection afforded to certain refugees under article 31. The first is the "reasonable excuse" defence, which would cover situations in which persons had no document when they began their journey. Secondly, subsection (5)(b)(iii), as amended, makes allowances for those rare situations in which a person's actions in deliberately destroying the document might be considered a reasonable cause for the purposes of article 31. I therefore believe that the amendment tabled to provide for article 31 is not necessary. In some respects, it does not go as far as my amendment, because, in rare situations, the latter can cover the actions of non-refugees who are nevertheless particularly vulnerable. I hope that that reassures Members of our commitment to the 1951 convention, and addresses the concerns raised in Committee.
	I shall comment briefly on the Opposition amendments. Amendment No. 99 is a probing amendment dealing with the burden that clause 2 places on an individual to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, he or she had a reasonable excuse for destroying the document. We have placed the burden on the defendant because where someone has a reasonable excuse for not having a document on arrival, the details of that story will usually be solely within the knowledge of that individual. In Committee, I gave the example of the person who had been smuggled on to a plane by a corrupt official and who had never had a document. It is clear that only that person would know the details of how and when that happened, so it is not unreasonable to ask the defendant to prove, on the balance of probability, that it did occur. I therefore believe it justifiable to require the defendant to prove that, and I am pleased to note that the Joint Committee on Human Rights also takes that view.
	The Opposition have tabled amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to allow those who can produce another document that establishes their identity to avoid the offence in question. As I said several times in Committee, if a person satisfies us that he or she has never had a passport, or has a reasonable excuse for not having one now in spite of having had one before, clause 2 will not catch him or her, and nor is it designed to do so. However, where a person has disposed of or destroyed a passport and can provide no reasonable excuse for doing so, I do not consider it right that he should be exempt from the offence simply because he then produces some other document—almost by definition, a lesser document—that, he says, shows who he is. That immediately gives rise to the questions of why the person disposed of the passport in the first place and why he has chosen to produce some other apparent evidence of identity. We need to be serious in sending out the message that destroying documents is not acceptable.
	Of course, if persons are making a genuine effort to identify themselves through the production of alternative identification, that might make us more inclined to accept any reasons given for their not having a passport, but as I have said, a person who has a reasonable excuse for not having a passport will not be prosecuted, whether or not he or she has other documents that might prove who they are.
	If the amendments were accepted, people could try to advance a defence by producing any sort of document that they claim establishes their identity, nationality or citizenship. Given that such documents could come from any part of the world and from many different types of organisation, deciding whether they are genuine and whether they establish identity satisfactorily would be extremely difficult and resource-intensive for United Kingdom authorities. Considerable operational difficulties attach to identifying whether alternative documents are genuine or forged. In any event, Members will appreciate that a document such as a driving licence or student identity card would not be sufficient to travel on. The fact that a person has arrived in the UK suggests that they must have had a travel document in order to board, say, a plane in the first place. Furthermore, and returning to my earlier point about removals, I must say that driving licences and student identity cards do not allow us to return individuals; they are not sufficient for that purpose. That means that those who are trying to thwart return home by destroying documents would be able to do so safe in the knowledge that they could avoid the offence by producing some other, lesser document.
	Amendment No. 102 would create a statutory requirement for written guidance for the operation of the offence. As I said in Committee, we will produce such guidance—I intend to do so before the Bill is enacted—but I do not see a case for placing it on a statutory basis. I hope that my commitment is sufficient and that hon. Members will agree not to press the amendment.

Humfrey Malins: I should tell the Minister straight away that Conservative Members welcome some of the Government amendments that have been tabled since our very constructive debates in Committee. We take the view that those who deliberately destroy their documents, thereby intentionally frustrating the system, should be punished. There can be no doubt that the House should send that message to people who arrive here on an aeroplane or a boat having boarded it with valid documentation but who, at some time during the journey or after landing, and before being interviewed by an immigration officer, destroy their documents. We are absolutely at one with the Government on that point.
	The Minister said that we are dealing with offences of deliberately destroying documents. However, clause 2 does not say that; it is not headed, "Entering the United Kingdom having destroyed a document". It says:
	"A person commits an offence if when . . . interviewed . . . he does not have with him an immigration document"—
	namely, a passport. Will the Minister tell me whether it is possible to draft the clause better to make it clear whom we are trying to prosecute?
	As was said in Committee, millions of children are born in this world every year who never have any form of passport; likewise, tens of thousands of people who travel to this country to claim asylum have never had a passport. No doubt, there are also tens of thousands whose documents are destroyed, one way or another, en route. In many ways, I understand the concerns of bodies such as the Law Society, that argue that these measures may penalise genuine refugees and expose them to the risk of prosecution. Many of the strongest applications for asylum come from individuals who have been forced to enter this country with no documents or invalid documents. The mischief that we are trying to address is that of the person who, when attending before a Home Office official or an immigration officer, cannot satisfactorily prove their identity. The problem arises when it is impossible for officials to tell where people come from and they will not provide that information.
	I therefore tabled amendment No. 1 as a probing amendment, which we shall not press to a vote. It would replace the requirement for a passport with one for a document which would satisfactorily establish identity. If the mischief that the Minister is trying to tackle is the person who tears up a document, surely she should understand that applicants for asylum, who may never have had a passport but who can say to the immigration officer that they have a record of military service or proof of identity such as some sort of card, should not be guilty of an offence.
	The clause has been improved since our proceedings in Committee. I broadly welcome Government amendments Nos. 48, 50 and 34 because they tackle some of the issues that we raised there. I hope that the Minister can confirm some of the comments that she made then. She said:
	"Our intention is to be able as a result of this clause to prosecute people who deliberately destroy or dispose of their documents between embarkation and claiming asylum in this country. It is absolutely not our intention to try to prosecute people where we believe that they never had documents in the first place or that they have not destroyed documents, whether false or not."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 8 January 2004; c. 22.]
	If she is willing to repeat the undertaking that her intention is to prosecute only those who destroy documents, Conservative Members will be happier. The clause does not state that at all. It plainly provides that an offence is committed if the person
	"does not have with him an immigration document".

Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend has lighted on an important point. Although the Minister made the comments that he quoted, the immigration officer at the port of entry will not have Committee Hansard in front of him, and I doubt whether it will be drawn to his attention. It is therefore important that the Minister should either include a provision in statute or undertake to provide specific guidelines to the immigration service so that the point that my hon. Friend makes so cogently is at the forefront of the mind of the officer who has to deal with each asylum applicant.

Humfrey Malins: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend who contributed so well to our Committee proceedings. Of course, he is right. No immigration officer who conducts an interview will have Hansard in front of him or her. The immigration officer is faced simply with the proposition that the offence is committed if the person does not have the document. Throughout our Committee proceedings, we asked the Minister to come back with a better-drafted provision. The measure is sloppy because although it provides for an offence, stating that one is committed in specific circumstances, we have to rely on the Government to say that, despite the legislation, they will not prosecute in a specific case. The Minister owes us further explanation.
	In Committee, I pointed out there are some 50 million unregistered births every year. That is approximately 30 per cent. of all births. The proposition that refugees, of all people, should be able to present passports is unreal. The Minister has failed to deal with that or to table a suitably drafted amendment.
	I was pleased to receive a letter from the Minister in February that stated:
	"Where we accept that a person began their journey with no such document we would regard that as a reasonable excuse for not having one on arrival."
	It is all very well for the Minister to say that she would regard that as a reasonable excuse, but would the courts? The Bill is vague about that and does not satisfactorily establish sufficient protections for those who have simply never had a document. I have yet to hear from the Minister any argument against my proposition that the applicant could and should be able to identify himself or herself through another form of documentation.
	I do not think that the Minister answered the following question in Committee, but she should be able to tell us how many people she anticipates being prosecuted each year for the offence. In a year in which more than 100,000 applications were made for asylum, it is known to the authorities, I think, that a huge percentage of those people had no documents whatever. Under the Bill, therefore, a huge percentage would find themselves having committed an offence, leaving the immigration officer in question with virtually no alternative but to ensure the arrest of those people and ensure that they were charged. It is a big problem.
	On the other hand, the problem of those who tear up their documents is smaller and more easily controlled. It arises principally at airports and at ports to which people travel on boats, having provided passports in the first place. Amendment No. 1 would therefore insert the requirement for a document rather than a passport, on the basis that the mischief that the whole House is trying to address is those who destroy their documents rather than those who have never had any.
	I repeat the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that it is a poor thing that the immigration officer on the case must address his or her mind to Hansard reports to find out that the Minister has no intention of prosecuting anyone, except those who destroy their documents. That is the spirit in which I tabled the amendment. As I said, the Minister has gone some way to meeting concerns expressed in Committee on the defences and the times to produce documents—three days—and that represents some progress. It is possible, however, that she can make yet more progress and make the clause clearer and easier to enforce.

Roger Casale: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution. Like many Members, I have received powerful representations in my constituency in relation to the Bill, not least from the Religious Society of Friends led by Kurt Strauss and from Alison Williams and the Merton and Wandsworth law centre, with which I do a great deal of work to help many refugees in my constituency. They understand the need to send a strong message to people who wilfully and unnecessarily destroy their documents. It is crucial, however, that we strike the right balance in terms of protecting people's rights, particularly under the conventions—the Minister has referred to article 31 in that connection. I am pleased that she has listened to those representations, and on that basis I feel more able to support these amendments and to give support to the broad spirit of the Bill.
	When the Minister responds, will she confirm that when special circumstances arise under the amendment that she is putting forward, each case will be looked at on its merits? Of course, one would not expect the circumstances in which somebody does not have valid documents to be a valid defence—that would be the exception rather than the rule. Given the exceptional circumstances of many refugees and asylum seekers, however, there may be many cases. I hope that the Minister does not have a particular target in mind, such as 2, 3 or 5 per cent., but that she will look at each case on its merits to see whether such a defence will be possible under the new amendment. It is crucial that we have those safeguards that she is now putting in place to protect those rights, while at the same time having a robust and proper system that deters people from wilfully destroying their documents. Part of the operation of those rights, however, must be that each case is viewed on its merits, and I should be grateful if the Minister would reinforce that point and confirm that that is exactly what she will do.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for listening so carefully to what was said in Committee. Before I say more about that, however, let me list our main problems with this part of the Bill.
	To avoid misunderstanding, I reiterate that we fully acknowledge the need to deal with the specific problem of those who wilfully destroy their passports and other travel documents to cause difficulties in the asylum and immigration system. None of us doubts the necessity for adequate statutory support allowing the immigration service to deal with those who commit that offence.
	Our difficulties arise in four principal areas, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). First, there is the nature of the offence that the Government are putting in statute. As he pointed out, the clause relates not to an act of commission—that of destroying documents—but to an act of omission, that of simply not having the documents at the time when they are required to be produced. The Minister has gone a long way towards reassuring us about the circumstances in which the powers would be used, but as things stand the offence is effectively absolute, and prosecutions can proceed on that basis.
	The second issue is the point at which the offence is committed. It seemed from the preamble that we were talking about ports of entry—seaports or airports—but the wording of the Bill made it clear that it referred to an interview at any point. In Committee, we told the Minister forcefully that we needed a much clearer definition of what constituted the interview at which the offence would be committed. I think that the Government amendments address that problem.
	The third difficulty is that effectively no discretion is given to immigration officers considering whether an offence has been committed. We have had a good deal of debate about the reasonable excuses that could be adduced before a court as a defence, but the fact remains that the immigration officer is faced with a simple decision that does not allow him or her to take the individual's circumstances into account. It is a case of whether people have their documents on them or not when they are interviewed. If they do not have them, they are committing an offence; if they do, they are not. The discretion that has been suggested for immigration officers is not in the Bill as currently drafted. Again, the Minister has been helpful, but the guidance that she intends to publish will actually ask immigration officers to disregard what the Bill says and insert what the Minister wants. I would prefer legislation that stated what immigration officers were to do, and gave them the necessary discretion.

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman's contributions in Committee were much appreciated. At the beginning of her speech the Minister said that we were dealing with the offence of deliberately destroying documents. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is not the case? Surely we are dealing with the offence of not having the documents.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is the offence that the Bill suggests. The Minister has said that she would expect the power to be used where an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the documents have been wilfully destroyed, but that is not the same as framing the offence in those terms, which is what she has thus far failed to do.

Vera Baird: On that point—I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I sympathise with the Minister—would it not be extraordinarily difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that somewhere on the high seas or on a plane, an individual had personally destroyed their documents? If that is next to impossible, is not the better model to frame the charge of being here without documents, and leave open the prospect of a reasonable excuse, exculpating the individual from it if a satisfactory explanation can be provided? Is not that perfectly fair?

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady and I have some sympathy with her and the Minister's position, because I understand how difficult it is to frame the offence in the terms required to deal with the mischief. The answer to her point is that it is even more important to get the burden of proof right on the available statutory defences. That is my next point. If we can do that, I will be much more satisfied that the defendant has an appropriate defence for this apparently absolute offence and that the prosecution will then have to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. That does not apply at present, which is my fourth and most serious criticism of clause 2. Amendment No. 99, which is in my name, is designed to deal with that problem.
	As I have already said, the Government have been helpful to some extent on this particular clause. What the Minister said in Committee provided some reassurance, as did a subsequent letter, what she said today and the amendments that she has introduced. I greatly welcome the Government amendments that deal with defining the interview for the purposes of the offence being committed—a specific suggestion that I made in Committee, which the Minister has obviously considered and returned to. That is doubly helpful. It will ensure that the defendant is not caught out in unfair circumstances, and, more importantly from the Government's point of view, it will help the prosecution in taking away a defence that might otherwise be available. The present clarity—though it could be improved further—is helpful.
	Will the Minister deal with a minor point about Government amendment No. 49? I see no problem with it generally, but I am interested in the words "or living", which were not part of the original wording. The amendment includes the words:
	"in respect of any dependent child with whom he claims to be travelling or living".
	I presume that that applies principally to the circumstances in which someone is interviewed in country—not at a point of entry to the UK. The Minister says that those circumstances will infrequently, but potentially, apply. The person is then required to have travel documents for a child with whom he or she may not have entered the UK, but who is now dependent on them. I believe that there is still a potential difficulty with that widening of the Bill's scope and I invite the Minister to reflect on it further.
	I welcome Government amendment No. 50, which deals with the delayed production of documents for those in country. It is a perfectly sensible provision, which we urged on the Minister in Committee. She has also been helpful on a point that affects my amendments Nos. 100 and 101, which deal with section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Confusingly, that deals with article 31 of the refugee convention. The Minister has been most helpful today and I believe that the Government amendments deal with the point that I sought to raise, so I shall not press it any further.
	The Minister has also been helpful on the content of amendment No. 102, which deals with the statutory duty to provide guidance. She has put it on the record that we will have guidance, which is good news.
	That leaves me with one final, very important matter: the burden of proof. In her opening remarks, the Minister suggested that amendment No. 99 was a probing amendment. I have to disappoint her. It is not a probing amendment, but one that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends mean very sincerely, because the effective reduction of the burden of proof is a real problem. It is not even a move from the prosecution's having to prove beyond reasonable doubt—which would normally be the case with a criminal offence—to the use of the balance of probabilities. It reverses that, because the defence will have to prove on the balance of probabilities that the reasonable excuse that it has put forward as a defence is proper. The prosecution does not have to do a thing about that, because if that proof is not shown, there is no defence.
	That is profoundly unsatisfactory as a matter of law. For the House's benefit, I draw attention to the fact that the words in amendment No. 99 are not new to statute, but are already in the Terrorism Act 2000. With this Bill, we have the extraordinary situation that the openings for the defence of someone prosecuted under the Terrorism Act are better than those of an individual who, under this legislation, happens not to have their passport with them at the time of their substantive interview at the point of charge.

Edward Garnier: In my experience, where the burden of proof lies is not always terribly important during the run of a trial. However, what the hon. Gentleman is arguing for is not outside the ordinary. Not only under the Terrorism Act 2000, but in straightforward matters such as self-defence it is for the defendant to raise an issue and for the prosecution to knock it down. I am concerned that the Government seem to have forgotten that, and are placing an unusual burden on the defendant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will argue his case with vigour.

David Heath: The hon. and learned Gentleman's support on this issue in Committee was notable, and he clearly intends to maintain his support today. I am grateful for that. The Government are playing fast and loose with the rules of evidence and burden of proof in this instance, which is very significant. I quoted the 2000 Act simply because it contains an almost directly analogous situation in terms of a statutory defence available to the defendant that is then required to be disproved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. I do not think it unreasonable to expect the prosecution to do its work, nor do I think it unreasonable to seek to uphold a legal principle about reasonable doubt requirements in such matters that has persisted in this country since, I think, the early 1930s, and on which there is clear guidance. I do not understand what special circumstances make the Government—not for the first time, because they have suggested changing the burden of proof in other fields when it is administratively convenient—feel that is appropriate to abandon an important tenet.
	I think that the provision in my amendment, or something similar, will be passed in another place because there are enough people there who will feel strongly on the matter, and who have the expertise—well beyond my powers of persuasion—to ensure that a vote is passed. However, I should like to persuade this House that it has a role in defending the traditional tenets of our justice system, and that we should make a stand on such issues in this place.
	Because I feel very strongly about this, Mr. Speaker, I hope that I shall be able to catch your eye later in order to press amendment No. 99 to a Division. A very important principle is at stake here, in terms of the conduct of our criminal trials, and it should not be allowed to go simply because of inadvertence on the part of the House or complacency on the part of Ministers or others who have advised them that this is an appropriate way to go.

Edward Garnier: Looking at the clock, I see that we have until about 4.50 pm to discuss not only this group of amendments but four others, which demonstrates the absurd nature of the proceedings with which we must now contend, on an issue of such important public interest.
	I want briefly to discuss clause 2 and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). I broadly agree with the thrust of what he said, but the Government's problem is that they have allowed themselves to be confused by the magic of terms such as "passport" and "travel document". Surely clause 2 is about discovering the identity of the person presenting himself to an official at the sea port or airport, or at a later interview. There are plenty of ways of proving one's identity other than by a passport or travel document. We had a brief discussion on this in Committee, although it was necessarily truncated because of the guillotine procedure.
	The wider public who might come to read or perhaps listen to these proceedings might not know that the Government are wedded to the idea of people proving their identity at the point of presentation or interview by means of a passport or travel document only. As I have said, there are plenty of other ways of proving one's identity. Indeed, if we are to be strict about this, a passport is not necessarily a proof of identity. I see my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—a fellow of All Souls—sitting two Benches below me; I do not think that I need to go into a huge and interesting philosophical discussion about the nature of identity. For practical purposes, an immigration or asylum officer will need to ask, "Who is this person presenting himself to me? Is he who he says he is?" That procedure does not necessarily have to involve a passport. I therefore ask the Government to think carefully about the need to tie themselves down to a requirement for someone to prove their identity by means of a passport or immigration document.
	Let us imagine, for example, the case of an army or military group that had been the military arm of a country's Government but had ceased to have the confidence of the new Government, perhaps after a coup or some other form of change in government. The armed forces would therefore cease to be the official army and would be designated as rebels by the new Government. That might require a member of the former armed force—now a rebel—to seek asylum in another country because he had a genuine fear for his life in his home country. He might not have a passport or travel document, because he had had no need for one, having lived all his life in the country that was now in turmoil. He might, however, have his military dog-tag; he would therefore have his military number and possibly his name on the brass plate around his neck.
	Under clause 2, however, that would not be a permissible means of identification. The individual who arrived on our shores or at one of our airports presenting his dog-tag would therefore have committed an offence, because he did not have a travel document. It could well be said that the Government's new amendment, providing for a reasonable excuse, will lift liability from that individual under the clause. However, let us look again at the amendment tabled by the Home Secretary and no doubt moved—implicitly, if not expressly—by the Minister, to whom I offer many congratulations on becoming a member of the Privy Council, although I gather from Labour party circles that membership of the Privy Council is a rather fluid arrangement at the moment.
	The Home Secretary's amendment again refers to a travel document and to a passport as the means of proving identity. I can well understand the Government's argument; if one arrives on these shores in a tin bath, having capsized several times, one's passport and documents will have been washed away and will not be presentable immediately to immigration officers. One will have a reasonable excuse if it can be demonstrated, on the Government's argument, that that is what happened. There are plenty of examples—I have just given one—where someone's identity can be "proved", in so far as it is possible to prove identity at all, by means other than a travel document or a passport.
	In the light of the shortness of time, and the fact that I have a suspicion that others will wish to speak, I will stop there. I hope that my remarks will prove attractive to the Minister, and not only for their brevity, and that she will respond positively at the end of the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking correctly stated, we are simply trying to prevent people from destroying documents—from cheating. We do not want people to cheat the immigration and asylum system.
	We want to make sure that those who have a genuine claim under our laws and who come within article 51 of the UN convention can come to this country to present their claim as asylum seekers, but are not tied to identifying themselves by a particular class of document. That seems to be silly, unfair, counter-productive and probably not what the Government intend.

Annabelle Ewing: I rise to support amendment No. 99, tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and spoken to by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I shall be brief as a few others wish to speak.
	The amendment covers an important point of principle. As the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) said, clause 2 still does not exclude those people whom the Minister has been at pains to say are excluded—in effect or as a matter of practice—from the scope of the Bill. Her statements in Committee were welcome, as far as they went. However, I still do not see that express exclusion and, as a lawyer, I think it helpful to have legal certainty in statutes. If it is not the Government's intention to prosecute people who never had any documents, that statement should be in the Bill.
	The burden of proof is raised by amendment No. 99, which I am pleased the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will seek to press to a Division. The amendment raises a key point of constitutional principle. The Government's recent record seems to show that they are intent on denuding this country of its fundamental constitutional principles. It has always been the case that, in criminal prosecutions, the burden is placed on the Crown to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Where a special defence is raised, it is up to the accused in Scotland or the defendant south of the border to make a reasonable argument, but the burden remains with the prosecuting authorities. We have been well served by that constitutional principle for centuries, certainly in Scotland.
	It is astonishing that the Government plan, with a stroke of the pen, to get rid of that principle as far as asylum is concerned. That is unacceptable; if we see the erosion of that fundamental principle today on asylum, what will we see tomorrow? Where does the buck stop? Where will the line be drawn in terms of removing that fundamental principle?

Beverley Hughes: I realise that I may not have time to reply to the debate so, to reflect the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), will the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) and other Members who spoke in a similar vein explain how they think the prosecuting authorities could prove beyond reasonable doubt when, where and how an individual disposed of or destroyed their documents, between boarding a plane in another part of the world and travelling across airspace, when that act may not have taken place within UK jurisdiction but in the plane, outside British airspace?

Annabelle Ewing: The Minister should never underestimate the ingenuity of prosecuting authorities. The scope of the clause should be wide enough to cover people who never had those documents in the first place. That is the problem, but the Minister has not addressed it.

David Heath: Is not the key point that the prosecution does not have such a requirement under the wording of the offence in the Bill? Our argument is simply that the prosecution should have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that such a defence does not apply, which is completely different from proving that documents were destroyed in a particular place.

Annabelle Ewing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention and for clarification of his amendment. The amendment provides specifically that the Crown has to knock back the defence of reasonable excuse submitted by the accused in Scotland, or the defendant south of the border. That is the purpose of the amendment. It is an important provision and I shall be happy to support it if a Division is called.

Vera Baird: I shall confine my remarks to amendment No. 99, with which I disagree. However, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for his concession about the difficulty that would be faced by prosecution authorities when trying to prove by whom, how, when and where a document was destroyed. That is the degree of detail that is usually required when framing a criminal indictment and the hon. Gentleman readily conceded that it would be extremely difficult to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. That is the test, which is why the offence is framed as it is—a point that he seemed to accept.
	However, on the question of the burden of proof in a reasonable excuse, are we not in exactly the same position? The only person who knows how the document came to be destroyed, or why it does not exist, is the person who does not have their document with them when they arrive. How is the prosecution to disprove it if the person says, "My passport fell overboard when I was moving from a big ship to a small boat somewhere just off the coast of Malaysia"? A person has only to say that and the amendment would then impose on the Crown the necessity to disprove beyond reasonable doubt that such an event had occurred, which would be quite impossible. As the hon. Gentleman has already conceded, that same impossibility shows the wisdom of the current framing of the offence.
	All that is required is that the person with the unique knowledge of what happened must show that it is more probable than not that he is telling the truth. That seems a reasonable way to evaluate something that, in 90 per cent. of cases, only that person can possibly know about. The tribunal will say, "That's probably true", in which case the person has passed the test. That test is not mighty or difficult, but perfectly reasonable. It certainly is not, as the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) said, a constitutional principle that in each and every criminal case the prosecution must prove every element beyond reasonable doubt, and that the only requirement for the defendant is to raise a defence, which must always be disproved.
	There are innumerable cases in licensing, for example, or involving other kinds of permit, when it is uniquely in the person's knowledge whether they have a reasonable excuse for not holding the required document. Sometimes, people just have to declare their excuse, while under other legislation they have to discharge the burden of showing that it is probably true. There is no constitutional principle here.
	I point in particular to the fact that the defence of diminished responsibility for murder relies on the defendant showing on the balance of probabilities that what he says about his state of mind at the time is true. I respectfully say that no constitutional principle is being undermined, and the amendment is wholly impractical.

John Redwood: Listening to the debate, I have been swayed by the softer voices of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), urging the Government to caution in framing this offence. I am persuaded to their view because the offence attracts a sentence of up to two years' imprisonment. Someone could genuinely have had their wallet or handbag stolen on the ferry over to this country, and if their plea in mitigation was unsuccessful they could go to prison here. I wonder whether we should really be adding to the prison population for such a purpose.
	It is a pity that we will not have time for a proper debate on penalties, because one would have thought that people trying to come here illegally might regard being sent back as a more serious punishment, and that might be a more sensible response in our own national interest, undesirable though two years at Her Majesty's pleasure might be for most people.
	I urge the Minister to think more carefully about the framing of this offence, in light of the good and learned arguments advanced by Conservative Members and the doubts expressed from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Bob Blizzard: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned sending people back who arrive here without the necessary documents. To where would he send them?

John Redwood: To the place they had just come from, because they would be arriving at a port of entry off a flight or a ferry, and surely the authorities could work out where that flight or ferry had just come from. In most cases, the answer will be straightforward.

Bob Blizzard: Would not the country at the other end, receiving this person with no passport or documents, just send them straight back here? This poor soul might spend the rest of his life flying back and forth on an aeroplane.

John Redwood: Of course not. Very often, these people will come from a country that shares glorious membership of the European Union with us. This is precisely the kind of thing on which we should use our influence in the European Union to come to a sensible arrangement so that we do not end up playing shuttlecock with refugees or people seeking entry who do not have the right qualifications or reasons. That is surely within the diplomatic skills of some members of the Government, so that we can have common sense in this matter.

Glenda Jackson: I was unable to ask the Minister this question directly. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will ask her where these people will go at the end of their prison sentence.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because she has reinforced my case. Presumably, the Minister wants these people to go somewhere else after the prison sentence, so the problem remains. In the end, she must answer our question about where they are to be sent, and that is more difficult six months or two years later, after a prison term, than it would be on the day, on first arrival in the country, when we would normally know where they had come from. Arrangements could surely be made at the airport to ensure that that is the case. Perhaps we should pass legislation to ensure that we can identify exactly where people have come from when they arrive here, rather than legislating to send a lot of people to prison, some of whom might be innocent, because they have genuinely mislaid their travel documents or had them stolen in transit.

Vera Baird: There are often many reasons for drafting law, and I imagine that the most powerful one in this case is to deter people from destroying their documents in the first place. Although the problem subsists beyond the prison sentence, surely that purpose at least commends itself to the right hon. Gentleman.

John Redwood: I, like my hon. Friends, am worried about how wide the offence will become and whether it will be enforceable. The Minister thinks that she is making a firm proposal, but I assume that many people who are challenged will give all sorts of reasons why they do not have documents. Many may claim, as I suggested, that their handbag or wallet was snatched on their way over and that that contained the documents. Some might come up with the reason suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird): their documents fell overboard when they got off one ship and on to another. They might say that they left the documents lying around in the bar of the ferry and that they had disappeared when they came to pick them up again. In some cases, those people will be telling the truth and it will up to the court to listen carefully to that defence, but in other cases they will not be telling the truth. I wonder how easy it will be for the enforcement authorities to decide which people had deliberately destroyed their documents and come up with a bogus claim about what happened to them, and which had genuinely suffered a misfortune or mishap on the way over and thus did not deserve to go to prison.
	I know that many hon. Members would like to hear the Minister's reply, so I shall not detain the House any longer. We want to know about the burden of proof and the width of the offence—whether it is too widely judged. I would like to know why prison is thought always to be the answer and, especially, how the Minister thinks that we will sift out those who make a reasonable defence for where their travel documents have gone from those who try to mislead the authorities—I do not think that that will be an easy task.

Edward Garnier: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way because I know that he is keen to finish his speech. Clause 6 contains a list of things that will be used to decide a claimant's credibility. I do not know whether they will satisfy the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), but clearly the Government are worried about people telling fibs to officials.

John Redwood: My hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. The more provisions there are in the clause—there are quite a number—the more complex things will be for the courts and the more worries I have about how enforceable the offence will be. The Minister must tell us why prison must be the result, how enforceable the offence will be, and whether it is right to reverse the burden of proof on this occasion, because that might not work with the result that she has in mind.

Beverley Hughes: In the small amount of time that I have left, I would like to address a question that several hon. Members asked: why clause 2 is constructed as it is. I am again grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) because she asked questions of hon. Members that revealed the answer to that question. Let us consider the situation that we would face if the clause created the offence of destroying or disposing of travel documents. A prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that had occurred. My hon. and learned Friend and I made it clear that that would require the prosecution to be able to say in court who had destroyed or disposed of the document, and when, how and where that had happened.
	We are, of course, talking about a situation in which people travel from countries far across the world and thus spend a long time in a plane. They will also be airside in a British airport for some time, so they will have hundreds of opportunities to dispose of or destroy their documents during the journey. As I said, some of those opportunities will arise outside the UK, so even if it were possible to prove that people had disposed of their documents by handing them to an agent immediately after boarding a plane, that might well not be in a British court's jurisdiction. The potential for proving an offence would be negligible if the clause were constructed differently.
	Similarly, under the clause as it stands, for the same reasons, it is virtually impossible for the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt the fact that the defence put forward is not true. The present construction of the clause reflects the reality that we are dealing with. This is not like a police investigation within the confines of the United Kingdom, in which the authorities can adduce and search for evidence, and put it before the court to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.
	We are not in that situation, and it is impossible for the prosecuting authorities to do that, so the clause is not sloppy. Neither I, nor my officials, nor parliamentary counsel are complacent because we constructed the clause in that way. We did so because that is the only feasible way of constructing an offence that will catch some people who have disposed of their documents.
	The burden of proof in clause 2 means that it is for the prosecution to establish that someone has arrived without a document, and the defence of reasonable excuse is open to the applicant. On the balance of probabilities, the burden of proof is for the defendant to establish, because only the defendant knows what has happened. It is virtually impossible for the prosecution to know what has happened, or to be able to establish that with any degree of credibility.
	In response to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), I should explain that the main purpose of the provision is deterrence, and if hon. Members are serious about agreeing that we need a sanction to prevent people from disposing of or destroying their documents, and to enable us to take action when they do, they should realise that this is the only feasible way of constructing such an offence. Anything else would be impossible for the prosecuting authorities to operate.

David Heath: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady—as I now know her to be, and I congratulate her on that status—for giving way to me. However, the limited range of opportunities to exercise the reasonable excuse defence means that there is a limited number of options for the prosecution to prove. Given that, as she said, only the defendant knows what has happened, it will be equally difficult for the defendant to establish to the satisfaction of the court, even on the balance of probabilities, that there is a reasonable excuse. In that case, surely it is a basic principle of British law that people are presumed to be innocent unless they are proved guilty.

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman must consider what I said about the reality of the situation here. I concede that it is possible that the reason why someone has no document when they arrive is that they have never had one—and I am happy to give the right hon. Member for Wokingham an assurance that we are not interested in prosecuting people in those circumstances. However, we had a considerable debate on that subject in Committee, and the fact is that the vast majority of people who arrive without documents have destroyed them or disposed of them. There is only a very limited range of excuses. [Interruption.] If people have a reasonable excuse, it is up to them to put it forward and establish it on the balance of probabilities.

Edward Garnier: As the right hon. Lady now has only 30 seconds left in this rather important debate, will she briefly deal with the argument that I put to her about the passport as opposed to the means of identity?

Beverley Hughes: We cannot accept other documents because people cannot travel on other documents. They must a have a travel document—

Edward Garnier: I used my Visa card.

Beverley Hughes: They must have a travel document—
	It being one hour and fifteen minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day] .
	Amendment agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Amendment proposed: No. 99, in page 2, line 30, at end insert—
	'(4A) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsections (1) and (2) above, and relies on a defence under subsections (3) and (4) above, if the person adduces evidence which is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to the matter, the court or jury shall assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.'.—[Mr. Heath.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 309.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendments made: No. 49, in page 2, leave out from beginning of line 9 to second 'an' in line 11 and insert—
	'(2) A person commits an offence if at a leave or asylum interview he does not have with him, in respect of any dependent child with whom he claims to be travelling or living,'.
	No. 50, in page 2, line 14, at end insert—
	'(2A) But a person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) or (2) if—
	(a) the interview referred to in that subsection takes place after the person has entered the United Kingdom, and
	(b) within the period of three days beginning with the date of the interview the person provides to an immigration officer or to the Secretary of State a document of the kind referred to in that subsection.'.
	No. 51, in page 2, line 30, at end insert—
	'( ) Where the charge for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) relates to an interview which takes place after the defendant has entered the United Kingdom—
	(a) subsections (3)(c) and (4)(c) shall not apply, but
	(b) it is a defence for the defendant to prove that he has a reasonable excuse for not providing a document in accordance with subsection (2A).'.
	No. 52, in page 2, line 33, after first 'it', insert
	'or for not providing it in accordance with subsection (2A)'.
	No. 34, in page 2, line 44, at end insert
	', unless in the circumstances of the case it is unreasonable to expect non-compliance with the instructions or advice.'.
	No. 53, in page 2, line 46 , after 'officer', insert
	'or official of the Secretary of State'.
	No. 24, in page 3, line 4, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.
	No. 54, in page 3, line 23, at end insert—
	', and
	"leave or asylum interview" means an interview with an immigration officer or an official of the Secretary of State at which a person—
	(a) seeks leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or
	(b) claims that to remove him from or require him to leave the United Kingdom would breach the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention or would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) as being incompatible with his Convention rights.'.
	No. 25, in page 3, line 23, at end insert—
	'( ) In so far as this section extends to England and Wales, subsection (7)(b) shall, until the commencement of section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (increased limit on magistrates' power of imprisonment), have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.
	( ) In so far as this section extends to Scotland, subsection (7)(b) shall have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.
	( ) In so far as this section extends to Northern Ireland, subsection (7)(b) shall have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.'.
	No. 55, in page 3, line 23, at end insert—
	'( ) Section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) shall have effect for the purpose of the construction of a reference in this section to entering the United Kingdom.'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 6
	 — 
	Claimant's credibility

Amendments made: No. 58, in page 5, line 37, leave out
	'of any behaviour by the claimant'
	and insert
	', as damaging the claimant's credibility, of any behaviour to which this section applies.
	No. 59, in page 5, line 40, at end insert 'or'.
	No. 60, in page 5, line 42, leave out from 'claimant,' to end of line 43.
	No. 61, in page 6, leave out from beginning of line 13 to first 'to' in line 14 and insert—
	'(3) This section also applies to failure by the claimant'.
	No. 62, in page 6, line 15, leave out from 'country' to end of line 16.
	No. 63, in page 6, leave out from beginning of line 17 to 'make' in line 18 and insert—
	'(4) This section also applies to failure by the claimant to'.
	No. 64, in page 6, line 19, leave out from 'decision' to 'unless' in line 20.
	No. 65, in page 6, leave out from beginning of line 22 to 'make' in line 23 and insert—
	'(5) This section also applies to failure by the claimant to'.
	No. 66, in page 6, line 24, leave out from 'provision' to 'unless' in line 25.
	No. 67, in page 6, line 26, leave out 'the person' and insert 'he'.
	No. 68, in page 7, line 4, leave out 'and'.
	No. 69, in page 7, line 6, at end insert—
	', and
	(g) a decision to take action in relation to a person in connection with extradition from the United Kingdom,'.
	No. 70, in page 7, line 10, leave out 'and'.
	No. 71, in page 7, line 11, at end insert—
	', and
	(d) a provision of the Extradition Act 1989 (c. 33) or 2003 (c. 41),'.
	No. 72, in page 7, leave out line 21.
	No. 73, in page 7, line 45, at end insert—
	'( ) This section shall not prevent a deciding authority from determining not to believe a statement on the grounds of behaviour to which this section does not apply.'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 15
	 — 
	Deportation or removal: co-operation

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 16, line 19, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.
	No. 37, in page 16, line 42, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
	'(8) While sections 11 and 12 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) continue to have effect, the reference in subsection (7)(c) above to Schedule 3 to this Act shall be treated as including a reference to those sections.'.
	No. 29, in page 16, line 45, at end insert—
	'( ) In so far as subsection (3) extends to England and Wales, subsection (4)(b) shall, until the commencement of section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (increased limit on magistrates' power of imprisonment), have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.
	( ) In so far as subsection (3) extends to Scotland, subsection (4)(b) shall have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.
	( ) In so far as subsection (3) extends to Northern Ireland, subsection (4)(b) shall have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 4
	 — 
	Trafficking people for exploitation

Amendments made: No. 56, in page 4, line 26, leave out 'or'.
	No. 57, in page 4, line 30, at end insert—
	', or
	(d) he is requested or induced to undertake any activity, having been chosen as the subject of the request or inducement on the grounds that—
	(i) he is mentally or physically ill or disabled, he is young or he has a family relationship with a person, and
	(ii) a person without the illness, disability, youth or family relationship would be likely to refuse the request or resist the inducement.'.
	No. 26, in page 4, line 34, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 5
	 — 
	Section 4: supplemental

Amendments made: No. 35, in page 5, line 22, at end insert—
	'( ) At the end of paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (lifestyle offences: Scotland: people trafficking) add "or under section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (exploitation)".'.
	No. 27, in page 5, line 32, at end insert—
	'( ) In so far as section 4 extends to England and Wales, subsection (5)(b) shall, until the commencement of section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (increased limit on magistrates' power of imprisonment), have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.
	( ) In so far as section 4 extends to Northern Ireland, subsection (5)(b) shall have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.'.
	No. 36, in page 5, line 32, at end insert—
	'( ) In so far as section 4 extends to Scotland, subsection (5)(b) shall have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Humfrey Malins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to seek your guidance, as throughout Committee we were completely unable to debate clause 6, which is of vital importance. You will have noticed that today the Government have tabled 16 amendments to the clause, but we still have not had a chance to debate it. Is there anything that you can do to ensure that that vital clause, which the Government are amending with 16 amendments, is debated today?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make. These matters have already been decided by the House, and they are not matters on which the Chair can comment.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With respect to the hon. Lady, we will only waste time if we deal with any further points of order, and cut into the precious time for these matters, so perhaps we can move straight on.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Failed asylum seekers: withdrawal of support

Hilton Dawson: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 8, line 5, leave out clause 7.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment No. 17, in page 8, line 23, leave out 'has' and insert—
	'and his legal representative have'.
	Amendment No. 16, in page 8, line 25, leave out '14' and insert '28'.
	Amendment No. 18, in page 8, line 31, after 'address', insert—
	'and to his legal representative'.
	Amendment No. 19, in page 8, line 34, at end insert—
	'by up to 7 days'.
	Government amendments Nos. 74 to 77.
	Amendment No. 33, in schedule 4, page 41, line 24, second column, at beginning insert—
	'Section 55.'.
	New clause 1—Repeal of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—
	'Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (late claim for asylum: refusal of support) shall cease to have effect.'.
	New clause 12—Determination of claim for asylum—
	'For subsection 94(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 substitute—
	"(3) For the purposes of this Part, a claim for asylum is determined at the end of such period beginning—
	(a) on the day on which the Secretary of State notifies the claimant of the associated termination of his or her support, or
	(b) if the claimant has appealed against the Secretary of State's decision, and the appeal has been disposed of, on the day on which the Secretary of State notifies the appellant of the associated termination of his or her support,
	as may be prescribed.".'.

Hilton Dawson: Having moved the amendment, may I add that I support new clause 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard)?
	Eight days ago I had the privilege of attending a multi-faith commemorative service in Lancaster cathedral to mark the tragic loss of 20 poor souls only four or five miles away on the sands of Morecambe bay. That dreadful incident is well known to hon. Members, and undoubtedly the disaster had many facets. However, it is important to note that in that packed cathedral, in which the congregation was made up of people of many denominations and faiths, there was compassion for the people who lost their lives, irrespective of their asylum status or the country from which they came. It was an utterly moving occasion.
	I am pleased to have had the opportunity to move amendment No. 23, and grateful for the support of Labour Back Benchers, Liberal Democrats and Scottish nationalists. However, I am dismayed that all the sound and fury from the Leader of the Opposition on this matter only a few weeks ago now apparently signifies nothing. His strong feelings have evaporated into the puny efforts of amendments Nos. 16 to 19. In less than an hour, Conservative Members will have the chance to redeem themselves.

Humfrey Malins: May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition rightly complained about the Downing street briefing on a policy of taking children into care? That briefing took place before the Bill was published, and he was entirely right to say that no Bill should include any such measure.

Hilton Dawson: I was under the impression that the Leader of the Opposition cared about asylum seekers, but plainly that is not the case.
	Before long, Conservative Members will have a chance to redeem themselves by supporting the amendment, which would delete every word of clause 7, in a Division. If they fail to do so, their efforts to express concern about the protection of vulnerable children, which is the subject of their Opposition debate on Wednesday, will be met with ridicule. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration for the meeting that she allowed me after Second Reading to discuss my concerns about clause 7. I was pleased to receive a draft outline of the five-stage process that the National Asylum Support Service would undertake before support to failed asylum-seeking families who are not co-operating with the departure process ends.
	I acknowledge my right hon. Friend's conscientious work in trying to achieve a fair asylum and immigration system in this country, and I support her in that work: it is necessary to achieve that fair and open system in this country and, clearly, difficult steps have to be taken to do so. However, I absolutely and firmly believe that it is morally wrong to make families destitute—or, indeed, to threaten to make them destitute—as part of a process to encourage them to return home. I cannot believe that I am alone in that view or that the only hon. Members who support it are those who have so far signed up to amendment No. 23. I suspect that all hon. Members on both sides of the House would oppose clause 7 if they were able to answer honestly when asked away from the confines of the Chamber and the party whipping system.

Tony McWalter: Does not every law that we pass include sanctions that may well result in parents going to prison, so that, in turn, their children become looked after by local authorities and others? Is this, in fact, not exactly the same kind of measure?

Hilton Dawson: I am not aware of any measure that has reached this stage in the House that would make children in this country destitute. I cannot believe that such a measure is acceptable. Frankly, I cannot believe that it is coming from the party of which I have been a member for more than quarter of a century.
	Such a measure is unnecessary and would be counter-productive. Once all advocacy has failed, there is a more effective way to work with families who have to return home. The ultimate sanction for such families is not stripping them of every possible means of livelihood, but enforced removal. The work that needs to be done for those families for whom all efforts to remain have failed includes counselling to help them to face the reality of their situation, practical support to help them to prepare for going home, good communication with non-governmental organisations, public agencies, and family or kinship networks in their home countries to ensure that they will be properly received and that there will be somewhere reasonable for them to go. That involves sensitive, careful and detailed work.

Beverley Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if a family co-operates in the way that he outlines—by keeping appointments and being prepared to meet voluntary organisations to talk about their return—they will be fully supported throughout the process? That support will not end. What would he advise us to do in those circumstances where a family resolutely will not co-operate with those requests for interviews or take part in opportunities to work with voluntary organisations? What should we do then?

Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and I want to address precisely the issues that she raises. The programme that she sets out is a good one—I would want more work to be put into it and more resources devoted to it—but what she wants to do with the families she describes is fatally undermined by the principles of clause 7.
	This Government sometimes overlook the value and significance of social work with families, and they would achieve a great deal more if they remembered what social workers do. Social workers have an enormous role to play in taking on work relating to such families and unaccompanied children. Reunification is an important social task, and the approach that I am suggesting—by contrast with that set out in the Bill, and in clause 7 in particular—is entirely ethical. Such families would respond more readily to my approach because it would help to allay their fears, and because it would provide them with real and practical assistance.

Jenny Tonge: I am very interested in, and supportive of, what the hon. Gentleman says. Does he agree that when the Government produced their Green Paper "Every Child Matters", we Members of Parliament thought that they meant every child, not every child except the children of asylum seekers and immigrants?

Hilton Dawson: The hon. Lady is clearly right, and "every child matters" is a fine and inspirational statement that we should try to apply to all children living in this country, wherever they came from and whatever their asylum status.
	I am advocating a much greater emphasis on linking families in this country with resources in their own country, and the development of real, international, good-quality family social work. Unlike clause 7, my approach would not drive families underground and into the hands of criminals, traffickers and pimps. It would not encourage families to leave their children with social services because they do not have the means to look after them themselves. It would not lead to families being made destitute and homeless, and to their being criminalised and having to beg on the streets. It is true that it would not prevent forced removals, but nor would clause 7. It would not provide documents for those who cannot be removed, but nor would clause 7. However, it would not alienate the entire social work profession, the very professional standards of which should ensure that no social worker complies with clause 7. Indeed, the British Association of Social Workers has demonstrated outside Parliament today, probably for the first time in decades, against the Bill and against the fact that this proposal works entirely against the standing and principles of its profession.
	The course of action that I am suggesting would be more humane and helpful than clause 7, and I believe that it would work. An international social work approach to these very difficult human issues would work far better than what is currently envisaged under clause 7. It would be principled and rooted in the UN convention on the rights of the child, and in the European convention on human rights; but it would also be firm and fair. Indeed, I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister would advocate such an approach, but it cannot work alongside clause 7. As well as being simply wrong, making people and their children destitute when they are desperate, afraid and utterly uncertain as to what the future might hold is completely counter-productive.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister asks how I would deal with people who will not comply. I would not do so by making them so utterly destitute that they have to seek their resources from elsewhere—by going underground. I would do so through simple, patient face-to-face work that helps them to face the reality of the situation, and which gives them practical support and treats them with dignity and humanity. Such an approach might not work in all cases, but it is by far the best one for a civilised country to take, and I believe that it would work in the vast majority of cases.
	I honestly believe that mine is the right approach. I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Minister to dump clause 7 today, although it would be marvellous if she did. I shall be voting against it, and I hope that every Member of the House will vote with their conscience and help to reject it.
	Whatever the fate of this clause or this severely flawed Bill, I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept my proposal in good faith and resist the urge to tell me that although it is all very well, it will never work in practice. I hope that before the Bill goes through or plans to remove unaccompanied asylum seeking children are introduced, she will agree to work with the social work profession to develop a more ethical and effective approach and a calmer, more reasonable and more helpful way in which to assist people to find their way out of dreadful, uncertain circumstances in this country and to give them a better certainty in future when they have to go home.

Humfrey Malins: I thank the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who has a history of interest in such matters, for the way in which he introduced his amendment. However, I must bluntly say to him that his criticisms of the attitude of Conservative Members might have been better directed against Members on his own side, because the amendment reveals to the House the deep divisions within the Labour party on the question of support for failed asylum seekers. When he puts the matter to a vote, he will find that the Government whom he supports are wholly against his proposition and will do all that they can to vote it down. I therefore hope that in winding up he will reserve some of his critical remarks for his own Government, against whom he speaks with much force today.
	Clause 7, which has been the subject of much discussion—not least in Committee, where it occupied us for two or three sittings—deals with the position of failed asylum seekers in terms of their support. It is well known, but let me reaffirm it, that failed asylum seekers with dependent children receive asylum support until such time as they leave the UK or fail to comply with a removal direction. As stated in the explanatory notes, the clause provides that
	"if the Secretary of State certifies that, in his opinion, such a person has failed without reasonable excuse to take reasonable steps to leave the United Kingdom voluntarily or place himself in a position in which he is able to leave the United Kingdom . . . asylum support for the family will cease."
	My party does not disagree with that. It is proper, and fair to our system, that when people have exhausted their rights of appeal under asylum laws, benefits should be removed from them. That brings into sharp focus the whole issue of removals policy, where for the past few years the Government have been their own worst enemy in setting themselves a series of targets that they have never been able to reach and have had to drop one by one, instead introducing amnesties for failed asylum seekers. A parliamentary question that was answered on 11 December 2001 told me that the target for removals of failed asylum seekers for the year 2003–04 was 37,000. The Government utterly failed to meet that target and it has been dropped.
	The clause deals with the certification period. My probing amendments would make its operation more efficient and sensible. The period between the refusal of a last appeal and the removal direction is a kind of limbo. If the Government are to be able to certify at any stage during that period that the person concerned is not taking reasonable steps to leave the UK, they must be carefully scrutinised in that respect.
	A matter was briefly raised in Committee that I want to consider again today. What will the Government do about certification when a failed asylum seeker does not have removal directions served on him or her for some reason? For example, under the Bill, many failed asylum seekers whom the Government will not remove could be certified in relation to support. One reason for not removing them might be that the country of origin, as in the case of China, is unwilling to take back failed asylum seekers. Another reason might be practical difficulties, for example, a lack of airports in the specific part of the country from which the asylum applicant came.
	Let us consider Zimbabwe, to which the Government have suspended removals for some time. Only a week ago, I asked the Government about their removal policy to Zimbabwe. They replied that
	"although it would be safe for failed asylum seekers to return to Zimbabwe, our view at present is that in the wider context of the Government's position on Zimbabwe, it would be inappropriate forcibly to return them at this time."—[Official Report, 23 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 264W.]
	That prompts the question of what could happen to a failed asylum seeker who cannot be removed because of either the Government's direct policy of non-removal, as in the case of Zimbabwe, or the impracticality of removal.
	I raised the subject in Committee when I stressed that I believed that it was important to establish some form of appeal against the certification process. I am pleased that, as a result of my arguments, those of my hon. Friends and those in other parties in Committee, at the end of the debate, the Government said that it would be appropriate to introduce a limited form of appeal against cutting off benefits, but not removal. That shows the way in which Committees can work to the benefit of all concerned.

Bob Blizzard: From listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument so far, he appears to accept that there will inevitably be circumstances in which benefits to a failed asylum seeker have to be stopped. It is regrettable, but we will get to that stage. If that happens, what should happen to the children?

Humfrey Malins: That is a difficult question. The other side of the coin is the argument that one should never reach that stage and that the host country should continue to provide financial support indefinitely to failed asylum seekers. I cannot agree with that proposition. Although I hope that I always speak moderately, there is a question of parental responsibility. I wish that there were more opportunity to challenge a bad decision, but I have no reason to believe that the Government would act other than in good faith on the matter. If they act in good faith, they will not serve the certification notice until they are satisfied that the family concerned could and should go back to where they came from. They should not serve it when there is doubt, a suspended removals policy or when it is not practicable for a person to return to the relevant country.
	Hitherto, the notice has been served when removal directions have been given. That is an administrative act, effectively the last act in the chain, by which time the Government are in a position to remove. By bringing that forward and giving themselves an option to serve the notice earlier, when appeals have failed, the Government have created a period of limbo. I therefore seek from the Minister an assurance that difficult cases, which are subject to the notice prior to a removal direction, can be tackled humanely, sensibly and properly.

Bob Blizzard: Effectively, the hon. Gentleman is therefore saying that he would not stop the benefit of a failed asylum seeker—he would only stop the benefit when the asylum seeker was ready to get on the plane back home. Is that what he is saying?

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood me, no doubt inadvertently. What I am saying is that there comes a time at which benefit must stop. If an asylum seeker has failed in their claim, their appeal and their final appeal, it does not seem wrong in principle to say that from that moment, the benefit should stop, rather than waiting sometimes for many months until the removal directions are given, which is much later in those proceedings—

Bob Blizzard: What about the children?

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman raises again the question of the children. I dare say that that is a question that he will raise with his Minister, as clearly, from what he has said tonight, he is bitterly at odds with his own Government—and he is not the only Labour Member at odds with the Government. I am looking forward to hearing him challenge his Minister in the strongest possible way. Let us see if he does so.

Bob Blizzard: As the hon. Gentleman noticed in Committee, I fully support the Government's measures on this point.

Humfrey Malins: In that case, the hon. Gentleman is playing devil's advocate and teasing me somewhat.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we really need is a Government who can persuade people to go back if their claim has failed, and that the only satisfactory outcome is either legal settlement here or early return to another safe country whence the person came or to which they choose to go. What we are looking at is a failure to achieve that. Given the underlying reality—the Government's failure to persuade people to leave—this is a clumsy instrument, to which there is an ugly side.

Humfrey Malins: My right hon. Friend raises a good point. Again, he draws attention to the fact that the Government, over seven years, have not been able at any stage to put in place an effective removals policy. It is simply not good enough to answer a parliamentary question by talking in terms of targets of 33,000, 35,000 or 37,000 removals a year of failed asylum seekers, and to fail lamentably in that purpose. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who, I am sure, will contribute to this debate, will know as well as I do that at the moment only one in four failed asylum seekers are ever removed from this country. That is not a record of which any Government can be proud.

Simon Hughes: How, therefore, does the hon. Gentleman answer the following question, which is the same one that I put to the Government? Let us imagine that someone has made an application that has failed and that they are willing to co-operate with voluntary return, which people who come to my surgery often say that they are. Before that happens, however, there is a period in which they have no income, and they may have children to support. There must be a humane and civilised response to that predicament. At the moment, none is on offer from the Government, and I do not hear any on offer from the Conservative Front Bench.

Humfrey Malins: What I say to the hon. Gentleman, whose expertise on this subject is well known and has been appreciated over many years on various Standing Committees, is that one looks to a Government to behave reasonably in each case. If someone is willing to go, is about to go and is making arrangements to go, and that is imminent, an argument exists for the Government not to serve the certification notice but to wait until they take the view that the person is refusing to go.

Hilton Dawson: Have not the Government made it plain that while families are co-operating with the removal process they will not have social security benefits removed from them? Is not the hon. Gentleman setting out a position whereby the Conservative party accepts what its leader railed against some weeks ago—one in which children will have to be received into care because of the destitution of parents?

Humfrey Malins: Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that when my right hon. and learned Friend the leader of my party, who, incidentally, comes from a refugee background, raised the issue of children being taken into care, he was doing so following a briefing from Government circles—we never quite discovered who was responsible for it, because it was denied, I think—that the taking of children into care would in effect be used as a mechanism to encourage people to leave the country.
	We were strongly against that, and my right hon. and learned Friend was right to feel as he did. When the Bill was published the matter was not referred to, so the issue did not arise.

Annette Brooke: Is not the threatened removal of children still being used in that way in clause 7? Does it not pose the threat of their being taken into care if there is no voluntary departure?

Humfrey Malins: I have read clause 7. I know that the hon. Lady did not have the benefit of serving with us in Committee, but at no stage does clause 7 threaten the use of children as a tool.

Annabelle Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Humfrey Malins: I am anxious to make progress because many others want to speak, but I will give way to the hon. Lady, who served on the Committee.

Annabelle Ewing: It was clear in Committee that although no provision in the Bill would directly require such action, it might well occur as a consequence of the provision. That, I think, is what we have been talking about.

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Lady may be right, but if she is suggesting as a direct alternative that benefit for failed asylum seekers and their families should never cease, I cannot agree with her.
	One of my amendments would change the period relating to the cessation of benefit. I think it more appropriate to allow people 28 rather than 14 days following receipt of the certificate, so that they have more time in which to organise their lives. Another, minor amendment suggests that notice should be served not just on the applicant but on the applicant's legal representative. Clause 7 allows the Secretary of State to vary the specified period. Because I do not want him to be able to vary it to the extreme detriment of a failed asylum seeker by varying it to, say, one day, I have also tabled an amendment that will allow him to vary it by up to seven days—from, that is, the 28 days that I suggested in my earlier amendment. That would provide a little more leeway.
	I must tell the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre that my party cannot support amendment No. 23. I hear "Tut, tut" from a number of Labour Members, but they must understand that their own Government, to whom they are indebted, are violently against their proposition in any event. I hope that when they make critical remarks during the debate they will direct them at the Government, who will oppose them when the matter comes to a vote.

Neil Gerrard: I support amendment No. 23, but I want to concentrate on amendment No. 33 and new clause 1, which bear my name and those of, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck).
	New clause 1 would repeal section 55 of the 2002 Act. Members who were present for the debate on that Bill will recall that we had only about 15 minutes in which to discuss the introduction of that provision. It appears we shall have rather less time on this occasion to debate a section that has left thousands destitute, on the streets with no support. When it came into effect, we were given numerous assurances. We were told that it was intended to deal with people who had entered the country, worked illegally and eventually claimed asylum, or people whose entry visas had expired and who had then claimed asylum—in other words, people who had been in the country for substantial periods. We were told that a reasonable amount of time would have to elapse before someone was refused support on the basis that a claim had been made late.
	We have seen what has actually happened. People have been refused support, in some cases after being in the country only a matter of hours. There have certainly been many cases of people being refused support when they have been in the country for just a few days. People have had to sleep rough on the streets or survive on the generosity of others in refugee communities who do not themselves have many resources to offer.

Karen Buck: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Refugee Council survey of people left destitute under section 55? It found that 61 per cent. of such people were sleeping rough; 70 per cent. did not have regular food; and more than half had suffered serious health consequences as a result of being destitute.

Neil Gerrard: Yes, I have seen that survey, and one carried out by the Greater London authority. A similar picture has emerged from every survey that has been conducted.
	The other problem is the clogging up of the courts. We were told that, in October last year, about 60 challenges a week were going to the administrative courts, and the judges started to complain bitterly that it was clogging up the system and preventing other business from being dealt with.
	I am astonished by the latest development. In the past few days, the Home Office has sent a letter in which it says that unaccompanied asylum seeking children, who might have lived here for some time, will be the subject of section 55 interviews on their 18th birthday—their 18th birthday present might be to lose all benefits and support. The child might even have been in care, so we need to reflect on our duties to children when they leave care. That letter was sent, despite the Home Affairs Committee report that was issued a week or so ago, which criticised what was happening, highlighted serious concerns and urged the Government to review the operation of section 55.

Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that appalling matter to the House's attention. Any reasonable person reflecting on the issue will view it as an attempt wholly to undermine the Hillingdon judgment, which stated that young asylum seekers who had received benefits under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 would, on attaining adulthood, be eligible for support under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000.

Neil Gerrard: There are some interesting connections with that judgment. The measures in the letter will apply to children leaving care whose asylum claims have not been decided, rather than those who have been in care and have been given permission to stay.
	Finally—I shall be brief because I know other hon. Members want to speak—we should think again about the reasons that people make late asylum claims. I can think of a whole string of reasons. People might have been trafficked or brought in by agents and told to behave in a certain way. Some people might have suffered trauma and understandably do not feel confident about making a claim the moment they step inside the country.
	From debates in Committee we know that the Government take the view that people who make late claims make weak claims. The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration expressed her view of section 55 by saying:
	"We wanted to bring about a change of behaviour on the reasonable assumption that somebody fleeing persecution, or in fear of his life, would want to claim asylum in the safe country in which he had arrived as soon as possible."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 January 2004; c. 430.]
	Again, the implication is that someone who claims in country is making a weak claim. We have had this debate during every asylum Bill since 1996, and the Home Office's own statistics show that the rate of recognition of asylum claims made within the country for year after year is hardly different from—and in some years exceeds—the rate of recognition for people who apply at port.
	What is fundamentally wrong with section 55 is that, like some earlier measures such as vouchers, it penalises the genuine claimant. It was supposed to deter the abusive claimant, but in effect it penalises the genuine claimant. That is why section 55 is so absolutely immoral.
	I hope that it might be possible at an appropriate point during this evening's proceedings for a separate Division to be called on new clause 1 or amendment No. 33, which I hope will have the House's support.

Annette Brooke: I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the remarks of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). We support new clause 1, and we feel that it is a great pity that it has been included in this group, which rather inhibits full discussion on it. We are particularly concerned about the 18-year-olds whom the hon. Gentleman rather emotionally described. Those possible 18th birthday presents are alarming.
	We have already heard about some of the consequences of taking away benefits, or of not giving them in the first place, and we should bear in mind the lessons that we have learned from section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 when considering the proposals in clause 7. The clause is about voluntary departure, and I was very impressed with the carrot approach of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who suggested that we do everything we can to persuade people that that is the best course for them. I am aware that there was much discussion in Committee on that, and that the Minister outlined a number of steps to be taken. Surely, however, there can never be enough steps where children are concerned. That is why I rise to speak today.
	Clause 7 uses the threat of making families destitute as an enforcement measure. However we look at that, it is a stick—a very crude one—and I greatly fear the unintended consequences of using it. The first will be that the fear of families about how they will survive, and whether they will be separated, will drive them underground. Surely, the health and welfare of all children in this country should be absolutely paramount. This measure seems to deviate from all the principles that most of us are here to defend.
	A second unintended consequence might be that some families will feel that they are doing the best thing by leaving their children here. One can easily see that that might happen. We hear about desperation in other countries, and parents who let their children come over with friends and relatives. That desperation exists. We cannot therefore say that the Bill will not have the consequence that children will end up in care: they will end up in care.
	That brings me to the iniquitous position that social workers will be in. As I understand it, when a family is destitute, the Children Act 1989 and the professional ethics of those working with the family require social workers to look first to relieve destitution, but clause 7 proposes the opposite. What should social workers do in those circumstances? The framework in clause 7 undermines the professional judgment and skills of social workers, and I can envisage them being put in impossible positions, perhaps being asked to remove children from their parents to increase the pressure on parents to leave the country.
	The United Kingdom stopped removing children from their families on the ground of poverty a long time ago. Where, then, are we going with clause 7? I appreciate that Conservative amendments attempt to improve it, but I sincerely believe that the only action to take tonight is to vote for the deletion of the clause. We should remember that we have a proud tradition of caring, including caring for children.

Beverley Hughes: I want to deal first with amendment No. 23, which seeks, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) has just said, to delete clause 7. That would mean that we would be unable to withdraw support from families, no matter how much resistance they had shown or how much time and opportunity they had been given to leave the country once their claim had failed. We would therefore be in a very difficult position, both in terms of trying to achieve our policy objective and of explaining to our constituents how we could require people who were not legally in the country to leave but, if they refused to do so, we would have to continue to pay them to stay here indefinitely.
	I do not pretend that this is not a difficult issue. I find it very difficult, but, equally, I am absolutely convinced that we would not have a credible policy if we required people to leave when they should, but carried on paying them and providing them with accommodation at the taxpayer's expense when they refused to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Beverley Hughes: I shall give way in a moment.
	Briefly, that is the dilemma that we face, and we cannot avoid it simply by saying that we will carry on paying people regardless of their entitlement to be in the country.

Hilton Dawson: Is it not the case that, in this country, we want families to do all sorts of things, and that we achieve that by persuasion and by offering them support? We do not introduce the sanction of removing their benefits. Is it not a counsel of despair, when we are dealing with hard-pressed people who have often been through desperate experiences, to say that the only means of amending their behaviour is to make them destitute?

Beverley Hughes: That is not my intention. The intention of the clause is to persuade more families than at present that they should work with us to return home voluntarily. They should do so to avoid the potential trauma of an enforced return. I described in Committee how I had been out with an arrest team. The contemplation of immigration officers turning up in the middle of the night, getting children out of their beds and taking them to a centre to be put on a plane as quickly as possible is something that I would want to avoid in all circumstances, if I could.
	The process that I outlined in Committee, which would preface the certification allowed in clause 7, is specifically designed to give families every opportunity to work with us voluntarily to ensure that we get as many people as possible to take a voluntary route home.

John Redwood: What other options have the Government examined in order to try to have their way with returns without having to be too brutal about it?

Beverley Hughes: We have been examining these issues for some time, and have introduced a range of measures to try to increase the number of people returned. Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), we have achieved considerably more success than his Government ever did, with a record number of returns in 2003. However, we are dealing here with a particular group of people, and hon. Members will remember that in October last year the Home Secretary announced an exercise in which we agreed that families who had been here with children for three years or more from 2 October or before would be given indefinite leave to remain, provided they had no criminal record and met certain basic criteria. That recognised that, for families who have been here for some time, there are real humanitarian issues involved. For example, their children will have been in school, and the families will have become embedded in the community. When we announced that exercise, however, we said at the same time that families who have come into the system more recently and who have failed their asylum claims will have to return home. We will not continue the current practice of paying people indefinitely to stay.

Annabelle Ewing: rose—

Tony McWalter: rose—

Beverley Hughes: I shall just finish this point.
	Alongside the introduction of the clause in Committee, I outlined a process that would ensure that families had every opportunity to work with us. That process contains some of the elements and the spirit of what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has proposed—although not the detail; I do not pretend that it contains the range of counselling and other services that he suggested—in the sense that families would be invited for an interview and be able to discuss the options available and the nature of the process from then on. They would then have a series of up to three further letters setting out where they would be in the process, if they failed to co-operate, before certification took place.
	I am trying to stress that, if a family turn up to such an interview and co-operate with attempts to make arrangements for them to return, and if they go along and see the International Organisation for Migration or join one of the voluntary return programmes and work with the voluntary workers who are doing that work for us, they will be supported, no matter how long the process takes. If they co-operate with us to explore those voluntary routes, and help us to re-document them and to get the wherewithal to remove them, even if we cannot enforce a removal to a particular country, we will not certify and we will not remove support.
	However, if a family fail to turn up to an interview, fail to respond to the letters that we write and do not keep their appointments or speak to the IOM, there will come a point when we have to ask the legitimate question: do we go on paying someone who is behaving like that, when they should be working with us to go home? This is difficult, but there must surely come a point at which people's eligibility to be supported at public expense in the face of their refusal to co-operate must come to an end.

Annabelle Ewing: If it was deemed beyond the pale to include families in the withdrawal of support rules at the time of the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, surely it must remain beyond the pale to do so in March 2004.

Beverley Hughes: I have not said that it was beyond the pale in 2002; those are the hon. Lady's words. As I have said, we have been exploring—using a step by step approach—measures that we need to take across the board to ensure that people whose claims fail return home.
	The process that I shall implement in relation to clause 7 is not only fair but comprehensive in trying to get families to the point at which they take the voluntary route. As I have said, if they co-operate with us, they will be supported for as long as that process takes. We shall not remove support if they are working with us.

Diane Abbott: Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes: No, I will not.
	Under amendments Nos. 16 and 19, support would be withdrawn from a failed asylum-seeking family 28 days after receipt of the Secretary of State's decision to certify. That period could then be varied under regulations by up to seven days. We discussed this in Committee, and I hope that the hon. Member for Woking will accept that I made it clear then that, although the clause specifies a minimum 14-day period, the earlier stages that I have committed to before certification—which are involved in the process that I have set out—mean that there will be at least 28 days from appeal rights being exhausted to certification, and probably longer in many cases. I hope that he will therefore accept that we do not need to extend that period in the Bill.
	Under amendment No. 17, support could be withdrawn from a failed asylum-seeking family only when a copy of the Secretary of State's certificate was sent both to the person involved and their legal representative.
	Amendment No. 18 would reflect that by making it clear that a person should be regarded as having received the certificate only on the second day after it is sent, if it has been sent to him and to his legal representative. In Committee, I said that I have no difficulty with that principle but that it was not necessary to put it in the Bill. We will send letters to a legal representative, where there is one. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
	The Government amendments provide for an appeal by a failed asylum seeker to the asylum support adjudicator where the Secretary of State has certified that the family has failed, without reasonable excuse, to take reasonable steps to leave the UK voluntarily. I reiterate that the purpose of clause 7 is to encourage families to leave voluntarily, and I shall set out what the adjudicator might look at in such an appeal. We must remember that the appeal will not prevent removal. It is an appeal against certification, not a reopening of the asylum claim.
	In reaching a decision to certify, the Secretary of State will have concluded that the family, without reasonable excuse, had failed to take reasonable steps to leave the UK or to place themselves in a position where they could do so. The adjudicator would look at any arguments put forward by the family as to why they had not done so and whether the Secretary of State was right to conclude that the necessary steps had not been taken. That will provide further confidence in the overall process that we envisage for clause 7 and further reassurance that if support is withdrawn—I expect that to occur in a minority of cases, if any—the decision is the correct one.
	The hon. Member for Woking asked about a situation in which we could not enforce removal but a voluntary return was possible. I partly answered him by saying that, even in those circumstances, provided a family were co-operating with us to seek a voluntary route, support would continue and that we would deal with those difficult circumstances case by case.
	We do not want families to be separated. We do not want people to be destitute. We want a managed system whereby people leave voluntarily after a fair hearing of their case and where people are clear that they cannot, and should not be able to, expect the state to support them indefinitely, regardless of the merits of their case.
	On new clause 1 and amendment No. 33—

Iain Coleman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Beverley Hughes: No, I will not. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who tabled the new clause and the amendment, was trying to intervene. I would have given way to him, but I must respond to the debate if my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) will forgive me.
	Section 55 was designed to tackle a situation in which a significant number of people who had been in the country for some time were claiming asylum in order to get support. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow that there were initial problems in the operation of section 55, but we have made changes where these were required and sensible. I hope that he recognises that the new approach whereby people who apply within three days are granted support has made a difference.
	In recent weeks, about 50 per cent. of applicants have been given support under section 55 and there has been a considerable improvement in the number of reconsiderations; these are completed in 24 hours in 87 per cent. of cases.
	It being two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 82, Noes 444.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Amendments made: No. 74, in page 8, line 40, after 'of', insert 'a provision of'.
	No. 75, in page 8, line 41, after '2002', insert 'other than paragraph 7A'.
	No. 76, in page 8, line 42, after 'Schedule', insert 'other than paragraph 7A'.
	No. 77, in page 8, line 43, at end insert—
	'( ) On an appeal under section 103 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) against a decision made by virtue of paragraph 7A of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) the adjudicator may, in particular—
	(a) annul a certificate of the Secretary of State issued for the purposes of that paragraph;
	(b) require the Secretary of State to reconsider the matters certified.'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 11
	 — 
	Unification of appeal system

Mark Oaten: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 11, line 6, leave out Clause 11.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment No. 93, in page 11, line 25, at end insert—
	'(5A) A party to the Tribunal's decision may apply within 7 days to the High Court or, in Scotland, to the Court of Session for review of the Tribunal's decision on the ground that the Tribunal made an error of law.
	(5B) Where an application is made under this subsection—
	(a) it shall be determined by a single judge by reference only to written submissions, unless the court on receiving such submissions is of the opinion that there are exceptional reasons for an oral hearing;
	(b) the judge may affirm or reverse the Tribunal's decision, or remit for rehearing to the Tribunal;
	(c) if, in any application to the High Court, the judge thinks that the application had no merit he shall issue a certificate under this paragraph.
	(5C) Where the High Court or in Scotland the Court of Session affirms or reverses a review under this section a party to the review may bring an appeal as a point of law within 7 days—
	(a) where the original decision was that of a judge of the Court of Session in Scotland to the Inner House of that Court; or
	(b) in any other case, to the Court of Appeal.
	(5D) An appeal under subsection (5C) may be brought only with the permission of—
	(a) the court that made it, or
	(b) the court referred to in subsection (5C)(a) or (b) if the High Court or Court of Session in Scotland refuses permission.
	(5E) An application made under subsection (5D)(b) must be made within 7 days of the refusal of permission to appeal by the High Court or Court of Appeal.'
	Amendment No. 92, in page 11, line 26, leave out subsection (6).
	Amendment No. 31, in page 12, line 10, leave out subsection (7).
	Amendment No. 32, in page 12, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 13.
	Amendment No. 94, in page 12, line 11, leave out 'Tribunal's' and insert 'statutory'.
	Amendment No. 95, in page 12, line 12, leave out '(whether statutory or inherent)'.
	Amendment No. 96, in page 12, line 13, at end insert
	'additional to the statutory jurisdiction exercised by the court'.
	Government amendments Nos. 78 to 80.
	Amendment No. 97, in page 12, line 35, at end insert
	'provided that the immigration decision makes it clear at the time that deportation is capable of being a consequence of the decision'.
	Government amendment No. 81.
	Amendment No. 98, in page 26, line 19 [Schedule 1], at end insert—
	'(e) is a lay member'.
	Amendment No. 22, in page 33, line 28 [Schedule 2], leave out 'supervising' and insert 'organising training for'.
	New clause 8—Initial decisions—
	'(1) Initial decisions by the Secretary of State on asylum applications shall be made and notified to the applicant within six weeks of the application being made.
	(2) Notice of appeal from the decision of the Secretary of State to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ("the Tribunal")—
	(a) must be made in writing;
	(b) must be lodged with the Tribunal within 14 days of the decision appealed against, and
	(c) must list all the grounds on which the appeal is made.
	(3) Within 14 days of receipt of the notice of appeal the Tribunal shall hold a direction hearing at which all parties to the appeal shall be present.'.

Mark Oaten: It is important to remove clause 11, because in it the Government propose to take away the ability to refer a tribunal's decision to a higher court. We argued about the principle for a long time in Committee. Whatever people's views may be on the Government's intentions about streamlining the tribunal system—there may be some merit in considering how the different elements could be brought together—there is widespread concern about removing the right of appeal to a higher court. We also have concerns about the proposal to give unprecedented powers to the president of the tribunal.
	We will strongly defend the principle of having a tolerant society in relation to asylum and immigration, but the Bill goes even beyond that, attacking some important principles for justice as a whole. It upsets the constitutional checks and balances that we have had in this country for many years. By removing the right to go to a higher court, we could create numerous miscarriages of justice.
	There is a miscomprehension about why the Government are seeking to do this. There is an assumption that any individual who wants to take a case to a higher court must be trying to abuse the system. There is very little acknowledgement from the Government that there may be genuine cases and genuine reasons why individuals would want and need to have their cases taken further. It is not all about allowing abuse or delaying tactics.
	Since the Bill left Committee, we have had the report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee, which contains some powerful arguments for retaining the ability to refer to a higher court. The most compelling was in the conclusions, where it says:
	"An ouster clause as extensive as the one suggested in the Bill is without precedent. As a matter of constitutional principle some form of higher judicial insight of lower Tribunals and executive decisions should be retained. This is particularly true when life and liberty may be at stake."
	That is an extremely powerful quotation from a respected Committee, not only tackling the principle but pointing out that the Government are choosing to break it on such a critical issue as an individual's ability to stay here and not be returned to a life-threatening situation.

Diane Abbott: Could not the clause provide a precedent for exempting all sorts of Executive and administrative tribunals from understanding, applying or being governed by the law?

Mark Oaten: The hon. Lady is absolutely right: this could be the thin end of the wedge. There are a couple of circumstances in which we do not have the ability to refer to a higher court, but those are very limited and are concerned with security and terrorism. This would be the first incidence of such arrangements applying outside such circumstances, and it would be a serious erosion of the principle. I hope that the House, when it divides later, will stake out its principles on the issue.

Peter Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any respected lawyer or lawyers' group supporting the Government's position on this ouster clause?

Mark Oaten: They have certainly not been in contact with me, but it will be interesting to hear from the Constitutional Affairs Minister whether he has been able to find someone to defend the Government's position. Very few organisations, within Parliament or without, are in support. I have already quoted the Constitutional Affairs Committee, and we have similar evidence from other cross-party groups that have come together to condemn the proposal.
	If the principle were not enough—and I argue that it should be—there are more practical reasons why we need to retain the current system. The Minister will be aware that we had endless debates in Committee, with pie charts and graphs, about the number of mistakes currently being made. There is no point in rehearsing those again, because we come from a different perspective, but it is my judgment that there are still a considerable number of mistakes, and a considerable number of cases being overturned in the higher court. While that continues, there is a practical as well as a principled argument for maintaining a form of appeal to a higher court.
	Until the Government can demonstrate that they have such a secure system that no cases are overturned at a later stage, it will be a very grave move to remove the ability to have that further appeal. For cases involving certain countries, the number that are overturned is considerably higher than the norm: 35 per cent. of cases involving Somalia or Zimbabwe are changed or reviewed at a later stage. If the Government are to remove such judicial review, they will need to demonstrate that they have introduced a better system whereby such mistakes are not made. I am not convinced by what we have seen of their proposals that they have achieved that, but even if I were to be convinced, surely the logic would be to let the changes bed down and review them in a couple of years' time before removing the ultimate ability to challenge decisions in a higher court.

Patrick Hall: Even if the quality of the first decisions became perfect—such a system does not exist—one would still require the ability to review those decisions, because human beings make mistakes. We will always have a need to do that.

Mark Oaten: I agree. In a sense, the hon. Gentleman makes a stronger argument that I do. Having established the principle, I was trying to move on to a practical argument on the numbers game, but frankly, in dealing with issues of principle and justice we should not get into the numbers game, because even one or two cases of injustice would be unacceptable.
	I want to draw the Minister's attention to what Mr. Justice Collins said in the recent case of R (Konan).
	The judgment was made on 21 January, and it is worth noting what Mr. Justice Collins—a judge at the front line who made a judgment on the very issues in question—said in that case:
	"It is a cautionary tale since it shows that decisions of the defendant's officials and the appellate authorities can be wrong and that there is a need for a judicial assessment . . . If the possibility of judicial review had not existed the claimants would wrongly have been returned to the Ivory Coast."
	That practical example took place three or four weeks ago. The judge's ability to decide to refer the case to a higher court resulted in people not being sent back to a country where they would not have been safe, and many such practical examples exist.
	I offer a third argument to the Under-Secretary for why we need to keep the existing process in place. If the principle underlining the current arrangements and the practical day-to-day cases are not sufficient reasons for having judicial review, surely another compelling argument in its favour is that it has been proven to be a useful tool for testing law and making it better. I should have thought that, occasionally, the Government would welcome that opportunity because some asylum and immigration issues, and some interpretations of the international conventions, are complex. The conventions have been described as "living instruments"—they are constantly tested and amended. It is a long-established principle that everyone in the system should be able to refer such convention changes to a higher court for clarification and guidance. For the sake of the clarity of such conventions, there is a compelling argument for retaining the ability to refer to a higher court.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the numbers game, is it not the case that in 2002, the divisional court threw back 260 cases as having been wrongly decided under the high test that had to be applied? If the Bill had been enacted at that time, all those people would have gone back to possible persecution, or even death.

Mark Oaten: The hon. and learned Gentleman uses those numbers to make a powerful argument, but even if only one rather than 200 people were affected, the principle of referral would be worth defending not only for the individuals concerned, but because it could be a useful tool to allow the Government and agencies to test and develop new law.
	The Government have suggested merging the various stages of the system into a tribunal. I shall especially focus on the power of the president because those of us who believe in the ability to test such matters would want an individual who could help us to access advice from a higher court. However, the Government's proposals restrict the power of the president, or rather give him so much power that he does not have to be bound by any higher court to which he may or may not choose to refer cases. At the moment, the Bill gives the president incredible power to decide whether to refer a case up. The fact that he or she will not be bound by a court's decision is unacceptable.
	In Committee, the Under-Secretary said that he thought that it would be very unlikely that the president would seek advice yet ignore it. As a general principle of good practice, I would prefer a measure to provide for that to be in the Bill, rather than relying on an intervention in Committee. Surely we should make good law in this country under that principle. However, an additional problem is that there might well be cases in which the president would be reluctant to refer a case to a higher court. One can imagine that league tables might be produced, so the president could think that referring cases on would be seen as a criticism of tribunal staff. The measure represents an unsatisfactory means of providing the ability to refer cases to a higher court for rulings. Paragraph 54 of the report published a couple of days ago by the Constitutional Affairs Committee says:
	"We see no reason why the President of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal should have the sole right to decide whether an appeal lies to a higher court or why the Court of Appeal should not be trusted with the discretion to take over particular cases if it saw fit."
	The Committee expressed concerns about the way in which the president will operate, so if the Under-Secretary were to look again at the powers of the president, it might go some way toward reassuring Liberal Democrats.
	Finally, I should like to refer to the way in which tribunals will operate and their ability to review their work, irrespective of the president. The internal review systems suggested by the Government seem to be weak. In the majority of cases, it will only be possible to accept written evidence for the purposes of review, and oral hearings may be held only in exceptional cases. If the Government wish to go down such a route, they could reassure us by strengthening a tribunal's ability to review a case. Clear arguments proving why an oral hearing may be necessary in some circumstances should be set out in the Bill. The Government again seem to want to restrain the ability to test and review decisions.
	Surely the way forward would be to introduce a system that does not require a lengthy process and does not, in the first place, lead to the current number of wrong decisions. Liberal Democrats support the Government's intention of speeding up the system, but we disagree with the route that they are taking. We want better quality decisions to be taken in the first place, which requires better information on each relevant country, improved decisions and better training of individuals. The Government should consider putting in place a package of measures to try to speed up the system and produce better decisions before introducing more draconian measures that change the judicial process.

Alan Beith: In reminding my hon. Friend that all the provisions will affect not only asylum applicants, but immigration applicants, will he note that the Constitutional Affairs Committee recorded that the Government cause more delay to immigration applications than applicants?

Mark Oaten: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful argument for examining different systems before starting to mess with the principles of evidence. Select Committees and others have plenty of evidence that could give the Government ideas about ways to speed up and improve the system. As the Select Committee on Home Affairs said:
	"The real flaws in the system appear to be at the stage of initial decision-making, not that of appeal."
	It recommended that the appeals proposals should not be brought into force
	"until the statistics show a clear reduction in the number of successful appeals at the first-tier, adjudication level."
	Again, that is a strong argument for putting in place other measures before making changes such as those proposed by the Government.
	Of course, the Government have already put in place measures to speed up the system, because they clearly want to avoid delays in cases going to a higher court, which we support. For example, they put in place a four-week system to determine whether they could speed up the process by making such a change. That has been in operation for about a year, which is a short time, but the evidence on that new system will not be evaluated or assessed because it might not be needed if their new proposals bed down effectively.
	The Government's intention of speeding up the process is worthy, and we would support a speeded up and fair process, but they seem to be prepared to break with long-standing principles that go way beyond immigration and asylum to achieve that. Will the Under-Secretary reflect that rather than trying to get a few quick headlines in the Daily Express and the tabloid papers, it would be better to reject the option of making the proposed changes and to put in place practical measures for the next year to find out whether they could achieve some of the Government's aims? Surely that approach would be more mature, sensible and in proportion with what the Government regard as a problem than making such fundamental changes that could have wider implications beyond immigration and asylum.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I shall be brief because I appreciate that several hon. Members wish to speak. In all the dreary and depressing history of this Administration's assaults on fundamental civil liberties, this measure is the worst by a streak. It is literally incredible that we should come to the House to contemplate removing all the protection of the law from a vulnerable minority who face the possibility of persecution, torture and death.
	The measure would never get through this House, let alone the other place, if it affected British people. The only reason why it is being advanced by the Government—otherwise, the Government themselves would not survive—is that it applies to foreigners.
	In putting this proposal forward, not only are the Government guilty of an iniquity in the House, but they have turned their back full-square on the long theology of the Labour movement, which has always maintained that justice is not an individual right given to individual people, but a universal—that it applies to us all, and is our greatest collective asset. A diminution of others' rights is a diminution of our rights; what diminishes them diminishes me, and diminishes all of us in this place.
	That is why I could never, never vote for anything that even resembled clause 11. I hope and trust that there will be many who will vote against the Bill in the Lobby. I do not suggest for a moment that we will succeed, but when we vote in that way, we will be passing a message to the House of Lords that those who vote according to their conscience in the House of Commons are universal in their determination to defeat that part of this legislation.
	We all accept that this is not a numbers game, but a matter of the highest possible principle—but while we are talking numbers, I should point out that in 2002, even given the enormous difficulty of obtaining judicial review and a successful application before the divisional court, the divisional court threw back 260 cases—cases in which decisions had been made that should never have been taken by any reasonable tribunal. Under the regime that will exist if this Bill becomes law in its present form, the people behind those 260 cases, and all their families, would have been sent back to face persecution, torture or death.
	That is the enormity of what we are being asked to pass. It is my abiding faith in the Houses of Parliament that leads me to believe that at the end of the day, the measure will not pass—that ultimately, it will not pass through this House, and will not pass through the House of Lords either. If we do pass it into law, it will be an object of shame both for this House and for this Government, which they will never, in history, survive.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said that it was a principle underpinning the Labour party and the Labour movement that people in this country should not be treated differently according to whether they are citizens or not. That is a principle to which I too, as a Conservative, have no difficulty in adhering. That all in this country should be subject to the rule of law, and have the protection of the law, is a fundamental right, and fundamentally underpins the ethos and the ethics on which this country was built and developed.
	In clause 11 the Government propose to do something unprecedented. Not even in the darkest days of the second world war, when aliens were being interned, and were subject to administrative procedures to bring that about, was the supervision of the higher courts removed from the process to prevent wrongs from being righted if necessary, and rights from being preserved. Yet that is what the Government propose to do.
	The only justification being suggested is that the administrative procedures that the Government seek to substitute will provide adequate protection. I accept that the Government face a problem with the appeals system. It is obvious that it needs to be streamlined to make it more efficient. I also accept that the system has been abused by a minority of unscrupulous lawyers, who take the view that by spinning out the proceedings in undeserving cases they can delay the inevitable, and even that the inevitable may therefore not happen, because the Government will lose the will to implement the decision and deport the person whose asylum application has failed.
	However, we must not lose sight of the fact that many of the delays in the asylum system have nothing to do with the courts, but stem from the Government's administrative failure to cope with the numbers of asylum seekers. We know that 20 per cent. of decisions made by the Home Office executive officers are not made within the two-month period prescribed. Is that surprising, when we consider their lowly status, the fact that they start on a salary of £15,000 per annum, and that they are regarded as wholly qualified to do their work after 27 days? It may not be surprising, either, in those circumstances, to note that many of their decisions turn out to be wrong.
	The Minister may care to comment on this, but I understand that the Home Office presenting officers attend only about 60 per cent. of adjudication hearings. Is it surprising, therefore, that the adjudicators often overturn decisions? As the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) rightly said, the system leading up to the tribunal stage is not only slow, but is entirely in the hands of the Government who run it. There is no point in the Government complaining about the system; it is their system.
	In my view, underlying the Government's proposal are complaints about the attitudes of the judiciary. The truth is that the Government do not like the judiciary. They do not like its independence or its attitudes. When Lord Falconer was appointed Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, why did the Home Secretary say to him, in an aside that was perfectly visible on television, "Now at last we will get the judges we want"? That is the reality of the Home Secretary's hostility to the judiciary and to the independence of its decision making.
	Furthermore, there is not much point in the Government complaining about the judiciary's decisions in asylum cases, when most of those decisions have been founded on the Human Rights Act 1998, which the Government themselves chose to incorporate in our law.
	In 1999, exceptional leave to remain was granted in only 2,465 cases; in 2002, there were 20,135 such cases. That was because the introduction of the Human Rights Act brought a whole new range of considerations to the way in which asylum cases had to be considered, leading to a completely different set of results. I do not imagine that the Minister wishes to criticise the judiciary for having been instrumental in helping that process along. If he does, I simply say to him that the Government should not have incorporated those rights in our law. It was his Government who chose to do that. There is no point in blaming the judges for interpreting the law, when Parliament asks them to do just that.

Edward Garnier: The Government have at last got round the inadequacy of their own legislation by cynically placing in this Bill subsection (5) of proposed new section 108A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which disapplies the Human Rights Act from the decisions of the tribunal. Not only did they cynically introduce the Act to British law so that they could say, "We're bringing rights home," but when judges apply the legislation that they so joyously put on our statute book, they disapply it, for the very reasons that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Dominic Grieve: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend—yet I understand that the Home Secretary has certified that he believes the Bill to be compatible with the Human Rights Act. The Government's approach is a complete mystery. Indeed, I have to say—and my hon. and learned Friend may well agree with me—that the provision will drive a cart and horses through the Government's attempts to make this ouster clause work. One of the things that I intended to say to the Minister was that I do not think that the ouster clause as drafted stands a hope in heaven of surviving judicial scrutiny. It will probably lead to a major confrontation between the judiciary and the Executive.
	It will not lead to the streamlined procedure that the Government want.
	I said that the Government do not want the judges to rule, yet the proposal is entirely a product of their Marxist past—[Interruption.] Yes, it is. The more I watch this Government and see that, having abandoned any hint of Marxism in economics, they long for centralised bureaucratic solutions to the problems that confront the country, the more convinced I become that they wake up in the middle of the night believing that those bureaucratic solutions can change the world for the better. I, however, do not believe that.
	I have some suggestions that will allow the Government to solve their problem. We have tabled a series of amendments—amendments Nos. 93, 92, 94, 96, 22, and new clause 8. If they were accepted, they would provide a framework by which it would be possible for the Government to achieve their aim of streamlining the legislation while keeping it compatible with the Human Rights Act and, indeed, making it work properly.
	Amendment No. 93 respects the idea that the tribunal and the adjudicator should be collapsed into one, to speed up the process. If that is what the Government want to do, so be it. Much will depend on the quality of the tribunal, to which I shall return in a moment. In addition, we would remove what is frankly the completely ludicrous notion that the tribunal can review its own decisions. It is sometimes possible to go back to a judge under the slip rule to ask him to review his judgment or order, but it is extraordinary that the Government consider it acceptable that the mechanism of appeal with which they are going to justify the Bill as Human Rights Act-compatible is to ask a tribunal that has just made a wrong decision to review it. That is nonsense. As soon as the Minister and the Government understand that, we can start to put the legislation into a sensible shape.
	We propose establishing a statutory appeal procedure to a High Court judge. It would be streamlined, with seven days to appeal, which would be possible without causing injustice. The appeal would usually be dealt with on paper, but with the possibility of the judge calling the case in for oral hearing if necessary. The judge would either affirm or alter the decision, or remit it back to the tribunal if further hearings of fact were required. That sensible approach respects the fact that the higher judiciary should have an input into the process. It would also ensure that the appeal is not conducted by the same people who heard the original case.

Richard Bacon: As my hon. Friend has not departed too far from the subject to human rights compatibility, will he invite the Minister to confirm whether the Government still assert that the Bill is human rights-compatible? The old version of the Bill clearly sets out on page 1 the certificate to which he referred. It says that Mr. Secretary Blunkett has asserted that the provisions
	"are compatible with the Convention rights",
	but there is no such reference in the clean version of the Bill, at least not on the front page.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the Bill as printed, after its passage through Committee, is no longer Human Rights Act-compatible, the Minister should have told us that from the outset. I take it that in the absence of that statement, he still considers it compatible. My hon. Friend is right, however, that it no longer features in the Bill. I suppose, therefore, that the Government are proposing legislation that is not so compatible with the Human Rights Act. I will give way to the Minister if he wishes to say whether it is a printer's error or the Government's new view of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: Which is it?

Dominic Grieve: The Minister does not want to intervene, so we are left with our quiet speculation.

John Gummer: As the Minister is not prepared to respond, does my hon. Friend agree that if the Human Rights Act is important in a case, it is precisely a case in which a country deals with foreigners, because that is when many countries have double standards? It happens to be true in Britain that we have not had double standards. The Bill is the first time we have had those double standards, which came into being the very moment the Government ditched their Human Rights Act, which brought the convention on human rights into our law.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend is right. It is also right that we should call a spade a spade and consider people's views with care. Many people—perfectly reasonable people—would often apply different criteria to foreigners and nationals. It is precisely for that reason that the protection of the law is so important. It is because emotions often drive people in an opposite direction that a system of law is constructed to ensure that mischief does not result from it. That is what is so unpleasant about what the Government want to do. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was right: if the Government can do that for this measure, what next? The comment on the second world war—
	"First they came for the Jews"
	and then for another group, and another—is correct. Those who are most unpopular in society need the greatest protection. I always thought that that underlay the Human Rights Act, however unpopular and uncomfortable some of the decisions might occasionally be. Perhaps the Minister will intervene if he disagrees, but in the meantime I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley).

Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) for their contributions, because subsection (5) of proposed new section 108A relates to anything that a tribunal may have done in which there is a
	"lack of jurisdiction . . . irregularity . . . error of law . . . breach of natural justice, or . . . any other matter".
	If this is the first time the Government are suspending the Human Rights Act, and if it is a convention of the House that the declaration of compatibility with that Act is not left in the Bill on Report, can we have a new convention that puts it back in any case in which the Government propose to lift the protection of the Human Rights Act, which we are told matters so much?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Again, I wait to hear how the Minister intends to deal with that.

David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: If I could make some progress—other hon. Members wish to participate.
	On the other provisions in amendment No. 93, once the review has taken place in front of the single judge, there should be a mechanism to appeal on a point of law to the Court of Appeal. We have again tried to streamline that by introducing the period of seven days. The appeal has to be done with the leave of a single judge or the leave of the Court of Appeal. From there, it can go to the House of Lords in the ordinary way if there is a point of law of general public importance. How would that procedure hold things up?
	I suspect that the mechanism of going to the single judge will be just as quick as asking the tribunal to review its own decision, by the time it has been weighed down with dozens of such applications. We know that the Court of Appeal heard only five asylum cases in the year from 1 October 2002 to 30 September 2003, and only four asylum cases were heard by the House of Lords. Admittedly, there were many more in the previous year, but that reflected the fact that the adjudicators and the tribunal were getting their decisions consistently wrong. I need the Minister to justify his proposal if he is to persuade me that allowing an appeal to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords would put a spanner in the works, especially as we propose a streamlined procedure to facilitate the process.
	On the Human Rights Act exclusions and the question of removal, I shall return to a point that I made earlier, which bears repeating: if the Government persist with clause 11, the judiciary will undoubtedly find every conceivable device to get round its provisions. Having examined it, I can think of a number of ways in which that might be done.
	The Minister may care to reflect on the point that if the procedures are irregular and flawed, it might be argued that there are no procedures. If there are no procedures, an application for habeas corpus will be entertained by the courts when somebody is about to be taken away in a van and put on a plane, and the mud will be all over the Government's face. The Government are being unreasonable and should accept our offer of a helping hand rather than persisting with a ludicrous policy.
	Amendment No. 22 deals with schedule 2, which is very worrying and is linked to clause 11. Schedule 2 provides for the supervision of judges by other members of the judiciary. I am not sure whether I understand what that means, but I have always understood that every judge is independent once they have been appointed. A judge may, of course, consult colleagues or discuss matters with them over dinner, but his decisions are ultimately independent.
	Explaining that point in Committee, the Minister said:
	"We propose that senior members of the judiciary will be responsible for supporting a group of approximately 10 immigration judges. The senior judiciary will play a role in communicating information and case law and will be available if the immigration judge wishes to discuss any issue. They will play a role in ensuring that the judges receive appropriate training and mentoring, should they need it. That is consistent with judicial independence and is essential to allow asylum and immigration tribunals to function effectively."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 20 January 2004; c. 317.]
	New Labour justice involves a judiciary that is no longer independent and that is so orchestrated from the president downwards that it achieves the ends that the Government want. The Minister should be ashamed of introducing such a proposal.
	It would be sensible to accept amendment No. 22, which would resolve the problem by changing the wording and removing the mischief. I do not mind if judges want to consult each other, but I object to the setting up of a parallel legal system based on new principles designed to achieve an administrative end. Before 1997, people said that the Prime Minister thought that Britain was too feudal and that he wanted to make it Napoleonic, but we are getting Napoleonic with knobs on—an administrative system that is alien to this country, which does not refer to our historic freedoms and which completely undermines judicial independence.
	Finally, I commend new clause 8 to the House; the Government should adopt it if they want to speed up the system. If the Government succeed in mastering the asylum system—there are some signs that they have made recent improvements—new clause 8 sets out a timetable for the Secretary of State. It states:
	"Initial decisions . . . shall be made and notified to the applicant within six weeks of the application being made. Notice of appeal . . . must be lodged with the Tribunal within 14 days of the decision appealed against . . . Within 14 days of receipt of the notice of appeal the Tribunal shall hold a direction hearing".
	Those are simple ways further to streamline the process.
	Justice delayed is justice denied—the saying is old and, perhaps, trite, but it is true. If the Minister wants the official Opposition's help in speeding up justice, we will do what we can to help him and to cure abuses. If, however, the Government seek to undermine the principle of an independent judiciary, which is what clause 11 does, he should not be surprised when we resist him.

Tony Wright: I shall be brief and have one point only to make. I have supported almost everything that the Government have tried to do to sort out the asylum system—it needed sorting out, and they have rightly set about the task with some vigour. I am also happy to join in the occasional jibe against lawyers—the jibes are good fun and always contain a grain of substance. However, there comes a point at which all of us who are not lawyers but who care about how the system works must ask ourselves whether we are being asked to go a step too far.
	I have examined what the Constitutional Affairs Committee told the House and what the Joint Committee on Human Rights told both Houses—their use of language is not restrained; it could hardly be more vigorous—in drawing our attention to the importance of the Government's proposal. We have always adopted the principle that higher courts review the actions of tribunals in this country. That keeps the tribunal system on course and enables us to run it, because we know that it can be disciplined by the purview of a higher court, which is a constituent of what we have become used to describing as "the rule of law".
	When the Government ask us to dispense with the rule of law by collapsing the appellate system into a single appeal body and by removing the appeal system from the purview of the higher courts, we are entitled to ask, "Why are you doing that?" As it happens, I am not one of those who simply say, "If it can be shown to be a constitutional precedent, I shall be against it." I favour breaking with all kinds of constitutional precedents on all kinds of fronts—I can give the Government a little list, if they would like one. However, I am not prepared to sign up to the removal of an appeal layer unless overwhelming justification can be given.
	Authoritative Committees of this House have explored the question whether the Government have an overwhelming case, and they have found that the Government do not have one. That places an onus on all Members of Parliament who broadly support the direction in which the Government want to travel to say, "Hang on a minute. Be sure that you are not asking the House to do something disproportionate. Be sure that the measure does not help to undermine the rule of law on this front, and potentially on a wider front too, just for Executive convenience." It is not always easy to tease out whether points of principle underpin the matters that we discuss because we have a habit of trying to make everything into a fundamental point of principle in order to sustain our case, but there are moments when such principles are clearly at stake, and clause 11 raises one such principle.
	We know that the measure will never be accepted by the other place, and the Government have presumably factored that into their thinking. As I see it, there is no way that legislation this fundamental will be accepted by the other place, so the Bill will presumably return to this House in a form that the Government think that they can get through, which will involve its amendment. The appeal system that we end up with will presumably be more streamlined than the current system, but it will be something other than the Government's current proposal.
	That may seem to many people to be a perfectly satisfactory outcome—indeed, that is how we do things.
	From the point of view of the House, however, that is not an acceptable way to proceed. The Government should not ask the House to agree something that raises fundamental points of constitutional importance, on the assumption that what will eventually be agreed will be something other than the original proposal. That is profoundly damaging for the House and for the reputation of our system. If for no other reason, I ask the Government to think again about the clause.

Edward Garnier: At the outset of their respective speeches, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) both claimed political ownership of a fondness for the rule of law and respect for our system of justice, and they were right to do so. Both our parties have a long and proud tradition of respecting the rule of law. I paraphrase what they said, because I am trying to be as quick as I can. Respect for the rule of law is not a matter that belongs to either party. I hope we share it, irrespective of our party political allegiances, and I am reasonably sure that the hon. and learned Member for Medway would hold those views regardless of whether he happened to be a Labour Member of Parliament. I know for a fact that my hon. Friend does as well.
	What the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) said at the beginning of his remarks also struck me as true and right, when he referred to the report of the Constitutional Affairs Committee led by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). It is, in some senses, remarkable that we have to remark on what that report says. It points out things that to me and, I hope, to most civilised Members of the House, are unarguable and which ought to be wholly unremarkable and uncontroversial. Why do they need restating? Because we are dealing with a very strange Government indeed, who seem to have forgotten everything and learned nothing.
	I shall do the Minister a favour by not referring to anything he said in Committee. The Government have crafted clause 11, which flies in the face of the accepted standards that the hon. and learned Member for Medway, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and the hon. Member for Cannock Chase take for granted. They are seeking to do what, for example, Lord Scarman in the case of the Crown v. Home Secretary ex parte Khawaja—a 1984 case in the House of Lords—remarked upon. He said:
	"Every person within the jurisdiction enjoys the equal protection of our laws. There is no distinction between British nationals and others. He who is subject to English law is entitled to its protection."
	He was not saying anything that was new. The great Lord Mansfield, in setting free the black slaves in the 18th century, recognised exactly the same. Judges in the 18th century, the late 20th century or today do not recognise the colour, creed, nationality or origins of the applicant for asylum before them—or, at least, they should not.
	The Government cynically introduced into our domestic law the Human Rights Act 1998, which brings the European convention on human rights into our law, and now they are prepared to strip it out completely. I shall analyse clause 11 briefly, as it demonstrates the eminent good sense of amendment No. 93 and new clause 8 which were moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. I do not need to repeat what he said. I ask the House to consider amendment No. 93 and new clause 8, whereby controls can be placed upon bad appeals, worthless appeals and time-wasting appeals by means of a requirement for permission and for speed, while none the less maintaining an attachment to justice and the rule of law.
	We should bear in mind the content of clause 11. First, there is a requirement that the tribunal
	"shall review its decision on an appeal if requested to do so by a party to the appeal."
	That is presented as though it were a tremendous bonus to the people of this country that if the court is requested to review its own decision on an appeal, it will consider whether to do so. If that is a bonus, the benefits are soon removed when one turns to the following page, page 12, which states:
	"On a review by the Tribunal of its decision on an appeal the Tribunal"—
	reviewing itself, of course—
	"may act under subsection (6)(b) only if satisfied that the decision would have been different but for a clear error of law by the Tribunal."
	So if the tribunal is not persuaded that it has made a mistake, it will not enter into any sort of review.
	Matters get worse. The Bill states:
	"No court shall have any supervisory or other jurisdiction (whether statutory or inherent) in relation to the Tribunal"
	and
	"No court may entertain proceedings for questioning"
	a host of things that higher courts exist to question and to impeach if necessary. A court is specifically prevented by the Bill
	"from entertaining proceedings to determine whether a purported determination, decision or action of the Tribunal was a nullity by reason of—
	(i) lack of jurisdiction,
	(ii) irregularity,
	(iii) error of law,
	(iv) breach of natural justice, or
	(v) any other matter".
	This is a Bill that was drafted by the close advisers of some African despot, not by a British Government interested in the rule of law. It is an absurd, disproportionate and wrong piece of legislation, yet we have to debate these clauses because the Government think it right and proper to do such things. The Government are like a group of small boys ripping up a beautiful butterfly—our constitution—pulling off its wings to see how long it takes before the beast is dead. As a Member of Parliament, I am appalled to find that I must even consider legislation containing clause 11.

David Winnick: There is merit in what the hon. and learned Gentleman says and I do not disagree with many of his arguments, but as a Conservative Member, does he not accept responsibility for the fact that asylum seekers have been demonised, not least by his party at constituency level and sometimes in the House of Commons? If the Government are acting in a way about which I have many reservations—I shall have to decide how to vote, or whether to vote at all, on this group of amendments—it is because they are responding to the manner in which asylum seekers are demonised by the media and the Conservative party, and to the constant pressure on them as a result.

Edward Garnier: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's point was helpful to him or his Government, but others will be able to consider it as and when they wish to.
	I shall explain briefly why I think that clause 11 is so strange and so absurd. Having learned that no court may look at matters that affect jurisdiction, or at matters that were decided irregularly, or were in breach of the law, or in breach of natural justice or any other matter—whatever that may be—we are told that the court may consider
	"whether a member of the Tribunal has acted in bad faith,"
	in reliance on an earlier subsection, but
	"only if satisfied that significant evidence has been adduced of
	(a) dishonesty,
	(b) corruption, or
	(c) bias."
	It is all right if the tribunal was slightly dishonest or slightly corrupt or slightly biased, or perhaps not at all dishonest but completely corrupt, and just a teensy-weensy bit biased.
	If that is the position, the tribunal can, if it thinks fit, look at itself again. I wonder whether the Government will find a judge who will think it proper to allow himself to be appointed president of the tribunal.
	We have seen the remarks of Messrs. Justices Collins and Ouseley, the two most recent presidents of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. In their judicial pronouncements, they have underscored the value of the appellate system that they have headed up. They are not making political points, but simply giving judgment on cases that have come before them from the lower tiers. Such people will not be available to sit on the tribunal, because most judges, I suspect, will find it a thoroughly objectionable and unprincipled tribunal to be in charge of.
	The Government have told us that they have to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor because it is offensive to the doctrine of the separation of powers. We are also told in the Bill that abolishes that office that the way in which judges will be appointed in future will underscore the separation of the Executive and the judiciary, whom it will free from the influence of political appointment. Nobody, of course, has ever suggested that our judges are appointed on anything other than merit, but none the less the Government think that that is appropriate. However, under this Bill, we will have a system under which the appointment of judges and members of the tribunal is subject to the influence of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, and citizens of our country can deal with asylum seekers in such a way that their human rights are expressly denied.
	I shall conclude with an illustrative example, as I appreciate that many other hon. Members wish to speak. The Government want to do away with the appeal process in the immigration and asylum system on the ground that it is offensive to the Treasury and some sub-editors and editors of some of our national newspapers. They also want to attract votes away from the British National party. However, not once but twice and now a third time they have required an asylum-seeking constituent of mine, Captain Rogelio Viteri, the former Ecuadorian naval attaché who, along with his wife, has been threatened with death, to attend a hearing. Both of them have been subjected to terrible personal anguish, both in this country and in Quito, where he was imprisoned without trial or access to due process. He was eventually told that he could stay in his home country and die or go away and live. I am happy to say that he chose to live in this country, and to apply for asylum here. He was granted it at the first tier. The Home Office, not content with that decision, appealed. At the appeal hearing, the Home Office did not submit evidence nor did it cross-examine my constituent's witnesses. It sat on its hands and lost the appeal, only to appeal that result. The next hearing is on 18 March. The Government are cynically removing the appeal rights of asylums seekers in the Bill, but they are prepared to exploit the appeals system at vast public expense and without any idea of what justice is or means, let alone what the cost is to the Exchequer.

Annabelle Ewing: I seem to recall that the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to his constituents' sorry tale in Committee. Is it not the case that Ecuador is whitelisted?

Edward Garnier: Ecuador is an interesting place, but I shall not go into the evidence that was adduced in the two previous hearings and will no doubt be adduced again.
	In short, the Government have double standards. They claim to be the patron of human rights, yet are prepared to abuse future asylum seekers' human rights under clause 11. They have demonstrated their lack of good faith, I submit, in their handling of the Viteri asylum application. I have said enough to make the points that I wish to make, and have burdened the House with my remarks for too long. I trust that hon. Members who have listened to others apart from me realise that the Government have some good intentions, but in relation to clause 11 they have completely and utterly lost all connection with humanity and justice.

Diane Abbott: I am glad to be able to speak in support of proper appeal rights for asylum seekers and of the amendment to delete clause 11.
	Two important parliamentary Committees examined the proposals on the appeal system and reached conclusions that are not favourable to the Government. Opposition to clause 11 rests on issues of principle and of practice. In the first instance, there is a clear objection in principle to any tribunal exercising a supervisory jurisdiction over itself, yet that is the set-up for which the Government are asking us to vote tonight. As colleagues have said, the Government can get away with that only because asylum seekers are involved. If clause 11 is passed unchallenged tonight, we will set a precedent that, for administrative convenience, could be applied to various Executive and administrative tribunals seeking to do away with a proper system of appeal.
	Underlying clause 11 is the Government's concern about delay in dealing with asylum seekers and a range of immigration cases. I have great sympathy with their impatience. I have been a Member of Parliament for 17 years in a corner of north-east London that is home to asylum seekers and economic migrants from all parts of the globe and have dealt with thousands of cases. Some things change—every time there is a war or disturbance in a far corner of the globe there is a change in the pattern of asylum seekers and economic migrants who present themselves in Hackney. Ten years ago, we saw people displaced from the former Yugoslavia, but since then we have seen Kurds and people from the horn of Africa.
	Demographic trends change, but other things remain the same. During my time as a Member of Parliament the administration system has been consistently poor, and delays have continued. The Government are right to focus on delay, but they are wrong to identify appeal rights as the most important cause of delay. If the Government introduced a programme of legal and administrative change to deal with delay at all levels, I would be the first to support them. Week after week in my advice sessions, I try to advise and help people who have waited years for a response from the Home Office. People who have had hearings in their favour are still waiting months to get the paperwork that will allow them to work and get on with their lives. Nobody feels more strongly about delays in dealing with asylum and immigration cases than the MPs who have to deal with those cases day in, day out.
	If the Government are concerned about delay, before they tamper with appeal rights they should look at the causes of delay, the solution to which rests in their own hands.
	I commend to the Government a recent report by Amnesty International on decision making in asylum cases that asked why some of the initial decisions were so poor. Amnesty considered 170 cases and came up with three main reasons, the first of which is the lack of accurate information on the human rights situations in some countries. I have often seen Foreign Office human rights assessments that bear no relation to what I or anyone who knows the country concerned knows about what is going on there—or perhaps the Government hear only what they want to hear. Secondly, there is a lack of objective consideration of the credibility of applicants. Finally, there is not enough proper consideration of torture and medical evidence.
	Before the Government tamper with appeal rights, why will they not look at the quality of the initial decision making, because that in itself would speed up the system? It is no good saying that there are bound to be a few mistakes. We are not talking about a few mistakes. Any of my colleagues who deal with immigration and asylum day in, day out will say that the proportion of poor initial decisions is far too high.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend has sat through many debates on immigration Bills with me over the past 17 years, but does she not find it astonishing that the Government have proposed no package of measures to improve the operation of the Home Office? I am not saying that the proposals to remove the second tier of appeal would be acceptable if such measures had been introduced, but the Government have not even thought of a way of improving that first process before removing the right of appeal.

Diane Abbott: Of course my hon. Friend is right. If the Government had proposed a package of measures—legal measures or merely changes in process—to improve the initial decisions, the House would look more favourably upon their suggestions on the appeals process.
	The Constitutional Affairs Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a member, said:
	"The new proposals do too little to address the failings at the initial decision-making level and the low level Home Office representation at initial appeals."
	Apparently, there is no Home Office attendance at up to 40 per cent. of cases. How can Ministers ask the House to set what might be a very damaging precedent in doing away with tribunal appeal rights, when they are not prepared to take the administrative steps to ensure that the Home Office is represented at all initial appeals?
	The Home Affairs Committee said:
	"The real flaw in the system appears to be at the stage of initial decision making, not that of appeal."
	Of course layers of appeal are needed because of the poor overall standard of decision making at the very first tier, which is the only check and quality control. Worse, where people know that the quality of initial decision making is so poor, it is an incentive, but not the only one, for asylum seekers to play for time. We could with more confidence defend a speeded-up system if we had more confidence in the initial decisions that it takes.
	The Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is not packed with dangerous radicals or even extremist Tories, said:
	"We recommend that the removal of a formal tier of appeal should not be undertaken until it can be shown that there has been a significant improvement in initial decision making and the rise in the number of successful first tier appeals has been substantially reversed."
	In other words, get the system right first. The Government should get the system working efficiently and fairly before tampering with fundamental rights of appeal.
	I note with some sadness that no Labour Member has so far spoken to support clause 11. I do not believe that a single Labour Member will rise to support clause 11, and I hope that those in the other place will read the report of the debate in Hansard and realise that the proposal to do away with a tier of appeal rights has no support among Government Members. I hope that that will strengthen the Lords in doing what it has to do in relation to clause 11.
	There is no doubt that the Government have made much important headway in trying to reorganise, streamline and make our asylum system more efficient. No one who has dealt with the system could fail to appreciate that the Government had a Herculean task; but, as has been said earlier this evening, in doing away with a whole tier of appeal rights, the Government are going a step too far. They need to knock out clause 11, and return to the House with a package of proposals to improve the appeals process altogether. It is with some regret that other hon. Members and I tell the Government that we cannot support clause 11. We will support the amendment to remove it, and we look to others in another House to reinforce our view.

Richard Bacon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in the debate. She referred to the fact that not a single Labour Member of Parliament had spoken in support of clause 11. I think that I am right in saying that not a single Member of Parliament has spoken in support of the clause. The Minister may find himself in the curious position of being the only Member of Parliament to speak in favour of clause 11 on Report, which speaks eloquently of its worth.
	The reason hon. Members do not support clause 11 is very simple: it is a bedrock of our system that we do not have unreviewable, uncheckable powers. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) put that exceptionally succinctly and clearly in his speech. The lack of such power is the basis on which the Anglo-Saxon legal and political tradition is built, and the Government need to understand that.
	I should like to raise a couple of issues with the Minister, the first of which relates to the Human Rights Act 1998, which has been alluded to. I should like him to make it very clear in replying to the debate whether the Government assert that the Bill is now compatible with that Act. My original copy of the Bill clearly stated that the Home Secretary
	"has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
	In my view the provisions of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights."
	If we pick a clean copy of the Bill off the Table now, it says no such thing; mysteriously, that certificate is no longer there. The Minister could do the House a service if he clarified that point. Following the Bill's consideration in Committee, do the Government say that the Human Rights Act no longer applies? If they think that it applies, why is it not stated on the face of the Bill? If they think that it does not apply, will they please say so and attempt to justify that?
	The second point that I want to make relates to the interesting, not to say amazing, letter that we received from the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration. In relation to clause 11, it says that section 108A is intended
	"to prevent a person using judicial review to re-open an appeal by challenging removal or deportation following an unsuccessful appeal. However—
	unfortunately—
	as drafted paragraph . . . could be interpreted as affecting an individual's right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention and the right to compensation following their unlawful detention as a result of action by IND or the Tribunal. This would place the UK in breach of . . . article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights . . . The Government's position has always been that the measures being introduced by section 108A will not exclude judicial review".
	Hence the new Government amendment. It continues by saying that the amendments
	"will ensure that the restriction on access to the higher courts cannot be interpreted as extending to challenges to actions of IND, or actions of the Tribunal in breach of article 5"—
	which will therefore—
	"place beyond doubt that the provisions contained in section 108A do not prevent a person from challenging an executive decision in the higher courts."
	If all that is clear, one wonders what all the fuss was about. But unfortunately, when one reads the Bill and examines the powers of the president, all remains unclear. Subsection (4) of proposed new section 108B states:
	"The President may refer a point of law only if the proceedings in the course of which the point arises . . . have not been determined by the Tribunal".
	Of course, it is entirely possible for someone who is affected by a decision to say during a tribunal hearing that the case before the tribunal was affected by a lack of jurisdiction or an irregularity, or by an error of law or a breach of natural justice. According to clause 11 as drafted, however, if the president of the tribunal says, "Well, actually, the case is not affected by lack of jurisdiction, irregularity, error of law or a breach of natural justice", he is then barred from referring the case to a higher court, unless—apropos the provision referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—the tribunal decides that it will review the decision on appeal, which it can do if it is satisfied that the decision would have been different but for a clear error of law. The president could be confronted with the possibility that there was a clear error of law and say, "No, there wasn't". But the Bill states elsewhere that he is barred from making a referral, so the two different parts of the Bill are contradictory.
	The third issue that I want to raise has already been referred to, so I shall not dwell on it. Fundamentally, the problem is not a legal one but an administrative one, which is why I support amendment No. 93 and new clause 8, the purposes of which are to speed up administration of the appeals system. The answer to the problem is not to drive a coach and horses through the whole legal apparatus, or to undermine the bedrock on which our liberties have stood—which is that we do not have unreviewable or uncheckable power—but to speed up the administrative processes.
	As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) said—he is no longer in his place—the House of Lords will not look kindly on the Bill; and, as the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, the fact that not a single Member has so far spoken in favour of clause 11 will give the Lords courage in resisting it and seeking to amend it. Although the hon. Member for Cannock Chase was right to say that the other place will not look kindly on clause 11 and probably seek heavily to review it, the judges themselves will not look kindly on it either. The history of the Executive's attempts to impose ouster clauses in this way suggests that if the judges see that an injustice will be done in a particular case unless they intervene, they will find a way to do so.
	Ultimately, the Government will succeed simply in undermining the rationality and logic of the rule of law, because they will force the judiciary to become ever more creative and imaginative in finding a way round it. That cannot be in anybody's interests. In fact, the Law Commission has an obligation to simplify and clarify the law, which is what we should all seek to do, so that everyone can understand it. The solution to this problem is an administrative one. The Government should not seek to solve it by declaring war on the judiciary.

David Winnick: I am very unhappy with the Government's proposals. If we were in opposition I can imagine what we would be saying, and it is quite likely that those Conservative Members who now oppose the proposals would be arguing in favour of them. However, that is the nature of politics.

Dominic Grieve: I do not think that we would, because the proposals are so fundamentally objectionable in terms of the idea of the state in which I want to live. However tempted one might be by the Government's proposals—I can understand that some people might be tempted by them—I could not go along with them under any circumstances.

David Winnick: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but whether a Conservative Government would take that line is a completely different matter.
	As I said in an intervention, this debate is being held against the background of the demonisation of a group of people—asylum seekers—over the past few years, and the Conservative party must accept some responsibility for that. I have seen leaflets distributed in constituencies that caused me to wonder whether the British National party produced them, and some of my hon. Friends can doubtless say the same. [Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary shakes his head, but that is the unfortunate fact. Of course, the media have also played a part in demonising asylum seekers at every opportunity. Although I am unhappy with the Government's proposals and I do not intend to vote for them tonight, I can understand why they are responding—wrongly, in my view—to that situation, and to a climate of opinion that demonises the people to whom I have referred.
	I am perhaps the only person in the Chamber who was here in the late 1960s, when another group of people were being demonised who were not in the United Kingdom: east African Asians. Because of the clamour—involving Enoch Powell and the rest of it—it was decided that they should not be allowed to come to the United Kingdom, despite the promises that were made. I was one of the 50-odd Members of Parliament—mainly Labour MPs, but not exclusively so—who voted against that proposal.
	Of course, there is no automatic right in terms of moving from the adjudicator to the tribunal—or at least, that was the case when I was involved in the appeals system. One had to rely on points of law, and when a client had lost a case and wanted to go to the tribunal, one would often have to explain the facts of life to them. Unless such points of law existed, the case could not be made for reviewing, and possibly reversing, the adjudicator's decision. But what worries me—

Jeremy Corbyn: In the light of my hon. Friend's experience of the appeals system, is he not concerned that the quality of representation of many applicants for asylum is very poor? They often lose their case at the first hurdle because of poor quality or non-existent representation, and at a later stage it is almost impossible to retrieve the situation. Taking away any kind of appeal actually makes matters worse.

David Winnick: My experience dates back over many years—I have represented my current constituency for 25 years—and I can only hope that that was not the situation when I was involved in the appeals system. I hope that representation is good, and I am sure that solicitors and the Immigration Advisory Service, which I used to be involved with, do as fine a job as possible. However, I accept entirely that, in many cases, that is not so.
	I cannot disagree with the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). It is unfortunate and unacceptable that the new tribunal will be able to make decisions that cannot be reviewed. I do not necessarily go along with the argument that today it is the asylum seekers and tomorrow it will be another group of people. Nor do I agree with the view that the Government do not want judges to be independent, and that they want them to be their virtual puppets. To the extent that that view is being advanced, it is an exaggeration and a false description of the Government's position.
	Having said all that, I believe that the Government have gone too far. It is clear that the proposals will be accepted, and I do not challenge for one moment the view that they will enjoy a good majority, but I do agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) that the likelihood of the Lords approving the proposals is very remote indeed. The Government will have to be less dogmatic, and it would be far better if they listened closely—if not to the Opposition then to their own Members.
	It speaks volumes that no Labour Back Bencher has decided to come forward to defend and to justify what is being done. I therefore hope that even at this late stage, it would be possible for the Government very seriously to reflect on our concerns and reservations.

John Gummer: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) contrasted what he thinks might happen if there were a Conservative Government with what is happening while there is a Labour Government. I think that he is wrong about that, and that no Conservative Member would have presented such a proposal to the House. Indeed, I find it a huge surprise that any Member would do so, but as it has happened we have to fight it very hard. The Minister should note the fact that no Member of any description has supported it or thinks it tolerable. The reason for that is rather serious: it is that none can believe that a Government would present such a proposal. I remember when we debated the inclusion of the European convention on human rights in British law. I was doubtful about the value of doing so, because I felt that the convention defends people against things that would not be done in Britain in any case. Now, the Government are proving that we need it.
	Several aspects of the proposal are seriously and fundamentally wrong. First, it treats people who happen to be foreign differently from those who happen not to be foreign. That goes against the first principle of English law; and it goes back, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, not to some enlightened judge of the 20th century, or even an enlightened judge of the 19th century, but to some pretty unenlightened judges of the 18th century, who made it clear that it was in the nature of British law not to treat people under its jurisdiction differently because they happened not to have been born here or not to have British citizenship. This measure represents a serious departure from what has been a very important example to other people.
	Secondly, it sets up a system in which, to all intents and purposes, there is no proper appeal to a court. I accept the points that have been made about speed and support the amendments tabled by Conservative Members, but remind the Minister that there is a great deal of difference between speed and making bad law. In doing something more quickly, one must not deny people their fundamental rights.
	Thirdly, it sets a bad example. The hon. Member for Walsall, North suggested that if the Conservatives were presenting this case and the Government were in opposition, they would be fighting it tooth and nail. I just wonder what we would think if one of the friendly nations across the channel introduced this change in the law. We would say, "Gosh, that just shows how good British law is: we would never do something like that." If it took place in some African state, we would say, in rather superior mode, "I wish they'd follow the British system." We would be unable to justify it happening anywhere else, yet in a few moments the Minister will get up to justify it here in Britain—the nation that has always stood for fair do's for people even when it is inconvenient.
	I am worried that the Minister has, yet again, made me vote on the left on a legal matter. That embarrasses not only me, but my constituents, who cannot understand why every time there is a change to the legal system—whether it is the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—they find their Conservative Member of Parliament having to vote on the left of the Government.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend should not be worried: he is not voting on the left. The point has been well made that many Members on both sides of the House can unite around this issue and express their anxiety. I suggest that the anxiety felt by my right hon. Friend, which he shares with me, fits fundamentally with Conservative ethics—it is a concern about the rule of law. That is a very traditional approach. He should reassure his constituents that he wants to stand up for the rule of law, as a good Conservative should.

John Gummer: I am perfectly prepared to say that—indeed, I have been doing so—but it does not get around my problem. The only people who would stand up in this House to support the Minister are those on the far right, none of whom should be elected to it. They are people like the man who, only a short time ago, stood as the British National party candidate in my constituency, so disgracing the electorate. I feel very strongly about this because I dislike and despise that party's policies, some of which are based on the idea that foreign people do not have the same rights as our own citizens and that a distinction should be drawn between our citizens and other people because they do not count as much. The Minister will have to do a lot of talking to prove to this House that his proposal does not mean that, although I believe that to be beyond even his style of oratory.
	Fourthly, I am a believer in infallibility, but only that of the Pope: I do not believe in the infallibility of tribunals, bureaucrats or much of the asylum and immigration service. It is manifestly unacceptable to install in our law a system that depends for its acceptability on the infallibility of people who have shown themselves to be utterly fallible throughout last year, the year before and every year that I can remember.
	Fifthly, there is the issue of delays, which has been discussed by several of my hon. Friends and other Members. The constituency of Suffolk, Coastal is not subject to the degree of pressure from asylum seekers that is experienced in the constituencies of many Members who have spoken. However, I have been involved in quite a few cases in my surgery, and in not a single one could I suggest that the Home Office has acted with dispatch. In all my many years as a Member of Parliament, I cannot remember the Home Office, under any Government, being described as speedy. Spot the deliberate mistake: "I am so pleased", says a constituent, "to have had a rapid answer from the Home Office." Who has ever heard anyone say that? How many Members of Parliament could say that they have never been involved in cases where the speed has been so lacking that the constituent's documents have been lost? How many could say that they have not had a case where the constituent's documents have been lost twice? I was involved in one where the documents were lost three times—no more than that, as yet, but perhaps if I stay in this House for another 20 years it will happen. The truth of the matter is that the Home Office has an appalling reputation in terms of the speed with which it deals with cases and its ability to lose the relevant documents.
	I therefore agree, unusually, with a Labour Member who said that it would have been sensible for the Government to present a package of measures to show that they would tidy matters up, put their house in order and make the Home Office so fast in its dealings that it would be reasonable for it to request rapidity from others.
	My last point is perhaps the most important. People who are in a privileged position should be especially careful about those who are not. Every hon. Member is in a privileged position because we know that the law will treat us fairly. Everybody who is born British should remember that it remains a considerable privilege because we live in a nation where we do not go about in fear, and when something goes wrong, we have a right and an opportunity to rectify matters. In that, we are not in the majority in the world. People like us, with privileges, should be especially careful about taking away those of the unprivileged.
	At the beginning of fair trade fortnight, many of us are concerned that rich countries take from, rather than give to, the poor. Many of us believe that huge changes should be made to the way in which the world works. We are especially worried that the poorest countries are providing capital to the rich rather than the other way around. We may take time to do something about that, but to take today the step of removing from people the few rights that they have and the small access to freedom that we give them is deeply offensive.
	I hope that all hon. Members who are in this country because, in the recent past, this country welcomed them or their ancestors, will think carefully before they vote for such a fundamental change. The privileged should certainly remember their position; those whose privilege depends on some past generous decision should be even more worried about the measure.
	It is unacceptable that the House of Commons should rely on the House of Lords to put right something that should never have been introduced. We are the elected House; we should stand up for the freedom of individuals. We should be ashamed that such a provision was brought before us and ensure that it is thrown out.
	The Under-Secretary should ask himself how he can come to the House to defend such a measure. Why is it him? Where is the Home Secretary when we are making a fundamental change to the law as it has existed in England for hundreds of years? He leaves a poor junior Minister to defend an impossible case, which would not have been presented were not the Home Secretary the man he is. Such a provision would not have been introduced without his personal decision. Yet whom does he leave here? A Parliamentary Under-Secretary. He is not willing to come to the House to explain why 300 years of law should be overturned. It is a disgrace and I hope that the House of Commons throws out what should never have been presented to it.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) because he is correct that we are privileged and enjoy rights, and that that does not give us the right to take them away from anybody else. If we pass clause 11, we will remove the right of appeal from some of the most vulnerable people in the world. Some of them have arrived in this country believing that they were coming to a place of safety. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said earlier, if we remove those rights from non-British nationals because that is easy, it is not difficult to extend the principle.
	Last week, we passed the anti-terrorist measure that allows the Home Secretary to detain foreign nationals indefinitely because they are foreign nationals and he believes them to have some terrorist connection. I believe that everyone, irrespective of nationality, has exactly the same right to access to justice. We should stand up for that important principle. If we vote for clause 11 tonight, we shall allow a parallel system of justice to be established and remove a right of appeal, and it will be a very bad day. I hope that the House of Lords will reverse such a decision, but it is sad that we have to rely on an unelected Chamber to overturn a decision that we should not accept.

David Winnick: My hon. Friend knows that I largely agree with him but I want to put the matter in perspective and I do not apologise for speaking about the Conservative party's position. Is it not a fact that the Conservative scheme would not allow asylum seekers into the country, but put them on an island, from where they would have no right of appeal?

Jeremy Corbyn: I support people's rights to seek asylum according to the terms of the 1951 Geneva convention. The basic right that it sets out for people to seek asylum because they are in fear of persecution for religious, social or political reasons should not be tampered with. It is important to stick exactly to that principle.

Dominic Grieve: Whatever the merits or demerits of the proposal to process asylum seekers offshore, I simply point out that, in such processing, all the protections of the law, including existing powers of appeal, would be there for those seeking asylum.

Jeremy Corbyn: If I may, I should like to revert to clause 11, which we are debating.
	All those who seek asylum have a right to have their case properly considered and tackled, and a right of appeal against any decision. Those rights include that to proper representation, and that is why I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick). As a Member of Parliament who represents an inner-urban constituency, where many people seek asylum, have sought it and will doubtless seek it in future, from all sorts of tyrannical regimes all around the world, I find it desperately sad that they are so badly advised and represented at the beginning of the process that the case is almost lost before it has begun. It is the Home Office's responsibility to ensure the availability of adequate legal advice and good quality representation. However, legal aid companies that have done good work on representation are closing by the day; good quality lawyers are giving up on asylum work because they can no longer afford to do it, and some of the most desperate and vulnerable people are left unrepresented.

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend referred to our unfortunate reliance on the House of Lords to throw out the clause. Is not one of the most unfortunate aspects that, if the House of Lords were reformed so that it was wholly appointed, it would be even less likely that the second Chamber would make good such provisions?

Jeremy Corbyn: As a democrat, I favour neither a hereditary nor an appointed but an elected Chamber. All Chambers should be elected and thus mandated. However, unfortunately, I shall not make the final decision.
	Let us revert to clause 11. In a couple of weeks, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights will start its annual session, which will run for four or five weeks, in Geneva. Doubtless, it will rightly pass many condemnatory motions about human rights abuses throughout the world. How embarrassing it would be if the commission passed a motion that condemned Britain for its failure to provide a proper appeals system for asylum seekers and for its deporting them to places of danger. We should consider that.
	Many hon. Members will have received an excellent document from Amnesty International that outlines the way in which Home Office decision making fails refugees. It tackles the concept of safe countries and the strange advice on which the Home Office appears to rely when deciding what is safe and what is not.
	Three weeks ago, I was invited to chair a meeting in the House of Commons of the Congolese community in this country to discuss the situation facing their country, their safety and their concerns. Some 3 million people have died in the current war in that country—a death rate of first world war standards recorded in the 21st century. Fundamentally, it is a war about resources, with lots and lots of complications around it. I asked those at that meeting, which was sober and well informed—some of the people who attended had lived in this country for a long time and had sought asylum 20 or 30 years ago, and some were more recent arrivals—what message they would like me to convey to the Government. Their message was that they wanted peace in their country, and a Government in their country who were representative, accountable and democratic, but above all, they did not want any of their compatriots who had sought asylum in this country to be deported back to the Congo, to a place of a danger.
	The Home Office decides the suitability or otherwise of various countries to receive failed asylum applicants on the basis of a sort of tick box process, saying, "Does it have an independent Government? Does it have an independent judiciary?" In many cases, the answer is yes, yes, yes, so it is safe to deport people. Every Member of the House who has dealt with deported asylum seekers who have been returned to various countries in west Africa and other places will know perfectly well that they are not safe when they return—that they can be pursued, arrested, tortured and beaten, and they can disappear. We have deported asylum seekers to those places of danger, and I have had a considerable number of such cases.
	As for some of the letters sent out by the Home Office, or the statements made to appeal committees against an asylum refusal in this country, I will quote one that was reported in the Amnesty International document concerning Colombia. It states:
	"The Secretary of State considers that the authorities of Colombia are capable of offering you effective protection. With regard to the offences committed against you, and the failure of the police to capture the perpetrators, the Secretary of State does not consider that the inability of the police to identify and apprehend such people can be construed as complicity in, or support for, such behaviour."
	I was in Colombia two weeks ago, and I met trade unionists who had seen fellow trade unionists murdered—the largest number in any country in the world in the past year—lawlessness and the ineffectiveness of the civil authorities when dealing with those cases. We have to be serious about this matter. In denying people the right to appeal, we are ipso facto sending those people back to grave danger and in some cases possible death.

Louise Ellman: Is my hon. Friend concerned that the issue that we are now debating is fuelled by a hardening of public attitudes towards people whom they see as strangers? Is he concerned that in pursuing that course the interests of justice might well be lost?

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It seems to me that much of the policy surrounding asylum seekers is fuelled by the headlines in the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, and the comments of some Members of the House at various times. It is the duty of Members of Parliament to stand up for rights, justice and vulnerable minorities. If we must pay a political price for it, so be it, but we must stand up to maintain those principles and that strength.
	In conclusion, the appeals system, far from being abused, is difficult to activate at present. One must get leave to appeal. According to the Home Office figures for last year, 4 per cent. of such appeals were successful. If this measure is passed, those appeals would be denied, which means that 2,900 people would be deported from this country who might have won an appeal. In the previous year, a much larger number won those appeals. It is up to the Government to explain exactly what they mean by this measure.
	We passed the Human Rights Act 1998. We have signed up to all the UN conventions, and we signed up to the 1951 convention. We pride ourselves on being a place of safety and liberty, and yet we deny it to people. Daily, I meet asylum seekers living on nothing, scrounging to try to survive in our society, wanting to work, wanting to contribute, but who are in danger of being deported back to the horror from which they thought that they had escaped by coming to this country as a place of safety. They are an easy target for the racists, the British National party and the tabloid press. We should be able to do and say something better in the House to protect that right of appeal and that fundamental right of asylum. Surely, as elected representatives, we should carry out that duty tonight.

Alan Beith: The amendments under discussion bear on issues that were raised by the Constitutional Affairs Committee in our report published last week. We began studying the immigration and asylum appeals process last year—proposals that had not yet come into effect from the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. We rushed to produce further reports on the Government's restrictions on legal aid in asylum and immigration matters, and we rushed the report out to make sure that the House had the opportunity of seeing our recommendations on this Bill, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. That Act, which was the Government's declared means of speeding up the process of appeals, has had no time to be assessed. If a process is introduced with that as the avowed purpose, at least we should allow more than a few months to establish whether it achieves that purpose. It is impossible to assess within a few months whether it has done so. The Government have simply not taken the opportunity to evaluate their chosen method of speeding up the process.
	In the course of that, we discovered that the initial decision-making process is so often faulty that to remove part of the appeals process, and certainly to remove the jurisdiction of higher courts, will be doubly dangerous, because there are obviously so many failings in the initial decision-making process. We went to India and Istanbul to look at the problems confronted there, we looked at many aspects in this country, and we received a wide range of evidence from both sides of the table—from Government, applicants and those who represent them, and from the judiciary, which was a source of real concern. One of the points that the Committee would want me to emphasise is that the measures under discussion tonight are not just about asylum but about immigration applicants of all kinds, including people seeking family reunions and people seeking family visits for weddings and funerals. Members will know of the extent to which they have had to become involved in trying to get people's cases dealt with in time for them to attend a funeral or wedding.

Richard Bacon: The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not just about asylum but about visits and so on. Does he agree that it is not just about asylum, immigration or visits, but to quote the Matrix chambers brief, about whether there should be
	"a precedent for exempting the executive and administrative tribunals from seeking to understand, apply or be governed by the law"?
	That could apply to any tribunal.

Alan Beith: That is true, and it is a point that has been well made in all parts of the House. I must emphasise, however, the range of categories of people who are outside this country but who are subject to the same process because they are seeking admission to this country to visit members of their family, or to join members of their family, in a process of inward immigration, which must be regulated but in which they are entitled to a fair hearing and a proper appeal system.
	Then we encountered the wide range of Home Office delays in processing appeals. It struck us that it should not be the Home Office that processes the appeal. It should not be the Home Office that receives the appeal and effectively decides when the tribunal can deal with it by sitting on those papers for quite some time. In any other judicial process, it is surely not one of the parties to the argument that effectively makes the decision about when the tribunal can begin to consider the hearing of the matter. Appeals should go to the immigration appeal authority in the first instance and not to the Home Office.
	Then we were concerned about the non-appearance of presenting officers. It seemed to us extraordinary that in so many cases—30 or 40 per cent.—the Home Office should not be there to present the reasons why it objects to the appeal being granted. That places an unreasonable burden on the adjudicating body and underlines again the need to be able to refer the matter to a higher level, if that has happened. Indeed, it led us to ask the Government to consider whether the judicial person in that situation should do something that was not normal in English law—to adopt a more inquisitorial approach simply to ensure that all the facts are brought out, which cannot be the case when the adversarial system is not operating because one side is not present.
	Then we had doubts and anxieties about the fairness of out-of-country appeals—non-suspensive appeals—and about the disparity between the success rate in paper appeals and in appeals taken orally, in which either the applicant or the family of the applicant were represented.
	There is a clear disparity. It suggests that if people do not know that it is possible to undertake an oral appeal, or if there is no one who can attend an appeal on their behalf, they will benefit from a less good decision. That is another reason to allow the matter to go further.
	When we asked the Minister in the Constitutional Affairs Committee about the ousting of the jurisdiction of the House of Lords, even in cases in which the tribunal president might want the Lords to consider a wider legal matter, he said that the Government were minded to allow the Lords at least a limited ability to define matters of law in an area in which their role had been so important in the past. So far, however, no amendment has been tabled to allow that.
	Let me select the two general conclusions made in the Committee which I consider most relevant to our discussion. In paragraph 70, we say:
	"An ouster clause as extensive as the one suggested in the Bill is without precedent. As a matter of constitutional principle some form of higher judicial oversight of lower Tribunals and executive decisions should be retained. This is particularly true when life and liberty may be at stake."
	In paragraph 71, we say that the system of statutory review established by the 2002 Act, which was invented to shorten the previous system of review, had not had long enough in which to operate, and that no change should be made
	"until there has been more experience of its impact."
	Yet here we are, in the closing stages of consideration of the Bill, seeing the jurisdiction of the superior court ousted without any of the points I have mentioned being satisfactorily addressed. That certainly convinces me that I should vote for amendments that either remove clause 11 or substantially alter its impact.

Vera Baird: The House is full of grandiloquence tonight, but I have only five minutes; and although the issues are large, it seems to be that the changes required are relatively small. What is required is an independent appeals system. That would restore the constitutional propriety; it would restore the rule of law; it would give coherence to the proposal, and make it compatible with the convention. At present there is no independent appeals process, and that is the trouble.
	There is nothing magical about judicial review. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) spoke of 260 decisions that had been judicially reviewed as if they had been successful appeals. What happens is that a decision is examined, and found to have been made in a reasonable or unlawful way. The case is then sent back to the adjudicator, who may make the same decision or may make a different one; but he will have to do it correctly the second time. I make no comment on how many of the 260 were true appeals and how many were not, and I entirely agree that one person wrongly sent back to torture because of the lack of a proper appeal is too many; but I think that that makes the clear point that judicial review is not necessarily the appeal process of choice for decisions that need to be not only right and accurate, but speedy.
	Judicial review is not such a marvel. It was ousted by an Act of Parliament very recently, and replaced by a statutory review, or independent appeals system—perfectly unexceptionably, it seems. Moreover, although many speakers have decried the ousting of judicial review in criminal cases, there has been no entitlement to it—except in relation to very peripheral matters—since the century before last. It is not a key part of our constitution.
	It is imperative, however, that the clause refer to an independent appellate process. I said the same on Second Reading, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said that the Government felt that the clause did refer to such a process. That is a review, on paper, by a colleague of the adjudicator, of the same seniority, who has been to the same classes and read the same books, and been taught by the same lecturers. The appeal principle is that there should be a proper review by a senior judge, better qualified and more experienced, who can truly review.
	As the clause stands, we are talking about passing the appeal to the chap on the next desk—a member of the same team. That is a curious notion of independence. What is required is the input of some senior judges. My suggestion is a small one: scrap peer review as a means of appeal, and bring into the single-tier new court a separate level of appellate judges, not at adjudicator level—which is district judge level, and quite low—but at the very least from the circuit bench, and probably from the High Court. They will be separately appointed, and they will not overlap. That is completely consistent with the usual manner of appeal in most courts in the land. In the unified criminal court that has just come into play, appeal is made from the magistrates court to the Crown court. They are quite separate, and the second is more senior than the first. From the county courts appeal is made to the Court of Appeal, and the second is senior to and independent of the first.
	I thought that I heard the Minister talking on the radio this morning about the possibility of some such change. It is imperative, and it will be hugely difficult for me to support the clause if it is not made. The Government are not just ousting judicial review; they are ousting all appeals and all application of the rule of law. I also think that that appeal level should be able to deal with oral hearings if it wishes. That too would be only a minor change, but it would mean no more delay in any applications; it would involve no more people—just different people. Indeed, it would involve no difficulty at all, yet it would rectify all that is currently wrong.
	I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). If these changes, or something like them, are to be introduced elsewhere, please let us not be driven through the Whips system to erode constitutional principles that we all hold dear when the Government intend to reverse them later.
	I want to add a footnote, but an important one. I feel that in the interests of consistency and the continuing development of this branch of the law, what is currently a right for the tribunal president to refer a case to the Court of Appeal ought to become a right of appeal as well. In Committee, the Minister said that the president would almost certainly regard himself as bound by what the Court of Appeal came back to say. There is nothing now to stop the parties from writing to him and asking him to refer it to the Court of Appeal. We are only a small step away from allowing the parties to make a application for leave to appeal, with the president as the filter. After that, preferably, there should be a back-up procedure, with the Court of Appeal being allowed to second-guess him on a reviewed application.
	As I said, there has been much grandiloquence. It suggests that the distance between clause 11 and the sound constitutional principles of which we are all fond is desert-wide and chasm-deep. In fact, only a short step is needed to upgrade the review judges to a better calibre, and to firm up into a proper structure the current ghost of an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Annabelle Ewing: I shall speak briefly, as I know that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) is anxious to speak, and he was an active member of the Standing Committee.
	I add my voice to the condemnation of clause 11 that we have heard from every speaker. I shall not go through all my reasons, but the key reason is of course the fact that the clause will oust the jurisdiction of the courts. It is not acceptable to remove a whole swathe of administrative decisions from legal scrutiny. That would confer virtual legal immunity on those charged with the operation of our asylum and immigration system.
	The proposal is therefore unconstitutional, sets a dangerous precedent and, as hon. Members have pointed out tonight, effectively creates a second-class citizen in the UK. That is wholly unacceptable and is not the tradition of legal principles in my country of Scotland. It was patently clear in Committee that the Government are adopting such a draconian position simply for administrative convenience. However, administrative convenience cannot cure the fundamental defects of the Government's approach.
	The Under-Secretary has heard every speech tonight, and every speech has been critical. I hope that he has been listening; he has said nothing yet. I look forward to hearing what he has to say, but he must accept that when every hon. Member makes such negative comments in a debate about his clause, surely the Government must think again.

Neil Gerrard: I shall be brief, as we need to give the Under-Secretary time to reply. It has been mentioned several times already that no one has spoken in support of clause 11, so let me reassure the Under-Secretary from the outset that that is not going to change. I am sure that he would not have expected me to say anything different.
	This is the most serious issue in the Bill by far because this part of the Bill will have the greatest impact on the greatest number of people. It is unprecedented for judicial oversight to be removed completely from any tribunal. No other tribunal in the whole of our legal system is not subject to judicial oversight.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) mentioned earlier in a brief and powerful speech that we could expect this to happen only to people who were not British. In fact, it will happen to relatives of people who are British. As hon. Members have pointed out, the provisions will apply not just to asylum claims, but to immigration cases. Our constituents will tell us about their relatives, who will be affected by the clause.
	The Government's arguments have been twofold: delays and numbers. I have yet to hear on Second Reading, in Committee or now on Report any argument of principle from the Government. The delay argument does not stand up, as has been pointed out many times in this evening's debate; nor do the numbers. The Government have not really played a numbers game—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway was not quite right on that—as much as a percentage game. They have said that only 3, 4 or 5 per cent. of appeals end up being won at the end of the process. However, if that small percentage is turned into real numbers, it is clear that we are dealing with 2,000 to 2,500 people every year, and the decisions taken could well affect their very existence. I do not believe that we should be taking any chances whatever in respect of getting it right on that sort of issue. A clear issue of principle is at stake here—ensuring that justice is done and taking cognisance of the consequences of a wrong decision.
	Finally, I shall say a few words about Government amendments Nos. 79 and 80. In some cases, a right of appeal to a tribunal would not exist in any case, but the amendments will take away judicial oversight from people who might be removed from the country and unable to challenge the decision. There could be grounds for a challenge—that the wrong person is being removed, for example, or that someone is being removed to the wrong place. We all know of examples where that has happened.
	It is a thoroughly bad clause. I would have liked to press my amendment No. 32, but in the absence of that, I shall certainly vote in favour of amendment No. 30.

David Lammy: What the Government propose has to be fair, principled and effective. Those have to be the watchwords of the Government's reforms, and clause 11 is central to our objective of delivering a streamlined appeals system. Appellants can be sure of independent and high-quality decision making and the system will deliver justice—but also finality.
	We have heard the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House, which have been expressed on Second Reading, in Committee, in the Constitutional Affairs Committee and again on Report tonight. We have listened to them, and the Government amendments, to which I shall return in due course, are directly intended to deal with them.
	In responding to amendments Nos. 30 to 32, it is also appropriate to cover amendments Nos. 92 to 96. Those amendments would effectively prevent the introduction of the single appeal tier, so I am afraid that I cannot accept them. They would allow the continuation of a multiple-tier appeals system and would retain existing routes to the higher courts or would introduce variations of the new review and appeal arrangements. In a sense, that is exactly what we are trying to avoid. It is vital to have early finality.

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend said that he had listened to the objections to clause 11. In that case, he will know that one principled objection is to the removal of a whole tier of appeal rights. Apart from administrative convenience, does he have any other reason for removing that whole tier?

David Lammy: May I tell my hon. Friend—she is my hon. Friend—that I am coming to that? It is not about taking away an additional tier, because we want to be satisfied that there is quality in the single tier. In fact, we meet and go beyond our human rights obligations under article 13.
	As I was saying, it is vital to have early finality, which will benefit—this is an important point—the genuine applicant, who will receive a prompt decision on the application and will be able to start life in the UK. At the same time, it will also deter those applicants who hope to play the system to their advantage to frustrate removal. There must be a fair balance, and it is right to secure that for members of the public.

Dominic Grieve: Does not the Minister agree that the tight wording of amendment No. 93 would, in fact, provide a streamlined system while still preserving independent judicial supervision of it? If the Minister goes down the road that he proposes, far from delivering finality, there will be endless arguments in the courts—the Minister's drafting will not be able to prevent it—in which one challenge after another will be mounted to the entire legislation. How will that help good government?

David Lammy: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is wrong about that amendment. It would mean having multiple layers of appeal and remittals back down to the single tier. That would bring about a long and protracted process, which is exactly what we are trying to reform.

NOTHING

Humfrey Malins: If the Minister is against having a long protracted process, will he accept our new clause 8, which introduces an element of speed into the process, particularly in the early stages? If he will not, why not?

David Lammy: I shall come on to new clause 8, which is designed to specify a period of six weeks directly in the Bill. That would be unhelpful.
	Let us examine what a person challenging an immigration decision can reasonably expect in this country. A person clearly has a right to expect an appeal to be heard fairly in a court, where the facts of the case can be put forward. If the case has merit, and the people do not have sufficient funds to meet the cost themselves, they can expect to be legally represented. Under our system, they will be able to do so.
	They can expect the decision to be taken by a member of the judiciary who is completely independent of the original decision maker, and who is an expert in immigration law.
	That is what appellants will be able to do under our system. Our measures fully deliver all that a person challenging an immigration decision could reasonably expect. We have designed a new system to ensure that there is improved quality, end to end, which builds on existing best practice and expertise in the current system.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Minister at least acknowledge that the system that he is putting in place is entirely different from that which a person would reasonably expect if they were going through a court procedure? If a market trader is denied his market stall, he can go to the magistrates court. If he does not like the decision of the magistrates court, he can go to the Crown court, and then have his case judicially reviewed. However, the Minister is proposing an entirely different system, which will deny all access to the higher courts. How can he say that that is compatible with our legal system?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman has referred to principles, so let us return to fundamental principles, and look at the European convention on human rights. I have that document here. Article 13 of the ECHR says that the applicant should be able, in seeking an effective remedy, to have independent scrutiny of the original decision. What in the system that we propose will not give the applicant independent scrutiny? In fact, our system contains not only the single tier of appeal but the review tier, so we meet and go beyond our obligations, and the applicant will have the fair hearing that the hon. Gentleman wants him to have.

Dominic Grieve: I have always understood that the Human Rights Act 1998 lays down certain minimum standards. There are countries within the scope of adherence to the ECHR about whose human rights record there are grave doubts. Why should we in this country abandon a superior system and reduce ourselves to the level of the lowest common denominator? Is not that one of the mischiefs that the 1998 Act has brought in, because the Government use it frequently and consistently to diminish rights?

David Lammy: We are not only meeting the obligations of the ECHR but going beyond them. The hon. Gentleman asks why we are introducing this system, and I shall tell him. This is what I tell my constituents and what I believe all hon. Members should be saying to theirs. It is because between October 2002 and September 2003, the adjudicator appeal stage received 70,198 appeals, of which just under 59,000 were dismissed. It is because the Immigration Appeal Tribunal received just over 33,000 appeals, of which just under 2,000 were allowed. It is because of that—because people are playing the system—that the Government must act to deal with what is in effect an abuse of process in a system that does not give people finality. We must have finality, which will benefit the genuine asylum seeker. It will also benefit social cohesion up and down the country and meet our obligation to ensure that we have a fair system for asylum seekers and for taxpayers.
	However, an appellant cannot and should not expect there to be an appeal process with multiple stages, through which they can avoid removal. Those who have no legitimate right to remain in the country simply cannot go on responding to every negative decision by mounting a further challenge. We cannot have an endless process of challenge after challenge.

NOTHING

NOTHING

NOTHING

John Gummer: Can the Minister explain to me why a market trader who happens to be British can make a proper appeal, whereas someone who is fighting for his life and who happens to be foreign is going to have less chance of a proper appeal? Is that not to have two categories of law? Why is the Minister daring to introduce that into this country?

David Lammy: I am doing that because—I shall put it very simply to the right hon. Gentleman—the market trader has no incentive to delay the system. In every other field of law, the applicant or claimant wants speed. He wants the judgment quickly. In this field there are in practice—I have given the statistics—far too many applicants, sometimes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) suggested, aided by unscrupulous solicitors who seek to exploit the system. We have to deal with that. In a sense, it is not justice. It is certainly not justice for the British taxpayer who has to foot the Bill.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister may have misunderstood my point. My concern is the very poor quality of representation that many applicants have because of the inefficiencies of the legal aid system. They thus lose their right to the limited justice that they get under the present system, never mind under a future one.

David Lammy: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we have introduced the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner, and taken all the action that we have on accreditation, to ensure that not only solicitors, but advisers, are up to speed and doing their best by those who would claim asylum.

NOTHING

NOTHING

NOTHING

Vera Baird: Can the Minister tell me of any other area of our justice system in which a person is allowed only one judicial hearing, and no appeal? If he is going to permit, in excess of what is required of him, a review of that single decision, why not make that an independent one, and satisfy everyone?

David Lammy: My hon. and learned Friend will know that judges in our system are not just independent of the Executive; they are independent of themselves, that is, they are independent of each other. Under this provision, the applicant, legally aided, who challenges the decision of the state and the IND—the immigration and nationality directorate—has an appeal to the new asylum and immigration tribunal. Then, if a clear error of law means that the decision would be substantially altered, he has a review mechanism. All the judges in the AIT are independent of each other. That is fundamental to our decision, and it is that rule that allowed the House of Lords to review its own decision in the Pinochet case. In a sense, that is what I seek to rely on in this matter. I have no doubt that the majority of the public agree with the balanced approach that we are taking.
	It might be helpful if I explain a little more about how the system will work. As in the current system, a person with a statutory right to appeal against an immigration decision will be able to exercise that right of appeal to an independent judicial body. When lodging the appeal, the appellant will be expected to bring forward all the grounds of that appeal and any statement of additional grounds.

Edward Garnier: The Minister has mentioned speed and efficiency on a number of occasions. Why, when he brandishes the European convention on human rights in his right hand, does he disapply it with his left hand through the Bill? Will he explain his horror of the Human Rights Act 1998—which his Government introduced—in so far as it reflects on this Bill?

David Lammy: This has already been explained to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has much legal experience. I would have hoped that he would understand it. We have obligations under article 13, and we are meeting them with independent scrutiny. Should an applicant choose to raise human rights points, he will be able to do so on appeal and through the review mechanism.

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend said earlier that asylum seekers—and economic migrants generally, I suppose—had a vested interest in delay. On the contrary: to my mind, one of the worst aspects of being an asylum seeker or any type of economic migrant is the administrative limbo in which they can spend years and years. Why will my hon. Friend not listen to colleagues on the Constitutional Affairs Committee and do something about the quality of the decisions at the first tier, before he moves on to this drastic measure of curtailing appeal rights?

David Lammy: I know that my hon. Friend cares passionately about these issues and has campaigned on them for many years, but we are doing something about the initial decisions made by the immigration and nationality directorate. We have external scrutiny of those decisions through sampling by Treasury solicitors, and we are seeking to do more with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Yes, we want to do more in terms of those initial decisions. There are ways in which we can make them better, which is why we set up the country information panels. These are panels of experts who help our caseworkers and senior caseworkers to make their determinations. There has been improvement in the initial decisions over the last three or four years, since hon. Members began to raise these issues.
	The majority of appeals will be listed for hearing before a single immigration judge. These judges, although independent and sitting alone, will have access to much better support and guidance than they do now. There will be a new collegiate structure for the judiciary in the tribunal. If a difficult point arises, the immigration judge will have the opportunity to discuss it with his or her experienced judicial colleague.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Lammy: I would just like to make this point. It is important, and several hon. Members have raised it.
	I want to assure those hon. Members who have raised this issue that there is absolutely no threat to judicial independence. We value the independence of the judiciary very highly. Adjudicators already work within judicial management structures. I want to reassure the House that I absolutely guarantee that at no time will determinations ever be altered by a more senior judge.

Keith Vaz: I do not blame the Minister personally, or his Department, for this mess. I blame the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration and her Department. If the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) had come to the Dispatch Box with a package of measures to improve the operation of the Home Office—I know that the Home Secretary also feels that the culture of the Home Office needs to be changed in relation to decision making—we could understand that. He has, however, come to the Dispatch Box after the passage of this Bill through Committee with no new measures to make such improvements. That is the real problem.

David Lammy: I sit with the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration on the joint supervisory board for asylum and immigration. The Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs have considered these matters across the board and we are doing a great deal to improve quality at the initial decision stage and at the first tier, to ensure that those who arrive here get a fair hearing.
	I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that I did not say that asylum seekers sought to play the system. What I said was that we need to make the system fair for genuine asylum seekers. I believe that a speeded-up process without multiple layers will achieve that. We also need to acknowledge that we cannot sustain a system in which just over 33,000 people sought leave to appeal at the second stage, and in which only 2,000 of those appeals were allowed.

Neil Gerrard: Is not the immigration appellate tribunal already pretty good at filtering out the cases that stand no real chance? Of the cases that are considered, a significant number succeed. The tribunal already filters out those without merit quite efficiently.

David Lammy: My hon. Friend must remember that within the single tier we have the mechanism of a review, headed by a High Court judge. The average legal experience of a judge in the tribunal, prior to becoming an old-style adjudicator, is 22 and a half years. The average experience of those who have become adjudicators—we have expanded the number—is just under five years more. We are talking about people making important determinations for asylum seekers in this country who have just shy of 30 years' legal experience. This is not some second-rate, old-style system. It is an important system that will consider important matters.

Richard Bacon: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

David Lammy: I am going to make some progress. I have five minutes remaining and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) wants to speak as well.
	From the outset, some appeals will be listed for hearing before a panel of immigration judges. These will be listed if it is thought that that the appeal may give rise to a complex or novel issue where authoritative case law is required. It may be possible that complexity will emerge during or after a hearing by a single judge; if so, the case will be re-listed to be heard by a panel. The appeal determinations made by the tribunal should be final, and the decisions fully comply with our obligations under article 13. We are not stopping there, which is why we have the review mechanism within the tribunal.

Rob Marris: I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend is proposing, but the sticking point for me is the removal of the right to judicial review. He will know that in order to go for judicial review, the applicant needs to get leave for judicial review under RSC order 53; therefore, there is a filtering mechanism in the system already. I urge him to retain that filtering mechanism under RSC order 53 and to retain judicial review as a bulwark for the protection of the individual against the state.

David Lammy: Under proposed new section 108B, where there is a clear error of law that would substantially alter the original decision, the person will be able to have that review, which will be conducted by a High Court judge. The mechanism exists within the single tier.
	I should add that the new appeal structure will preserve a continuing role for the appellate courts. We propose in proposed new section 108B a new referral process to the Court of Appeal or the Court of Session. This enables the tribunal to benefit from the appellate court's expert opinion, but without reintroducing opportunities for deliberate delay.
	I wish to refer to Government amendments Nos. 78 to 81 and to amendment No. 97, tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). The Government amendments respond to concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and other hon. Members. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for amendment No. 97 and I hope that he finds that the Government amendments meet his concerns. The Government amendments clarify the scope of the ouster provision in proposed new section 108B. They make clear the Government's intention that legitimate challenges to IND decisions, particularly those decisions on arrest or detention, will not come within the scope of the ouster, which applies only to removal or deportation decisions.

Edward Garnier: One of the many points that concern me about the Minister's remarks was his suggestion that judges should have discussions. Will those discussions be in open court? Will they be recorded, so that the applicant or the Home Office can hear the content of them? Will they be secret discussions, unavailable to public scrutiny?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman makes his point badly.
	In conclusion, our proposal is fair and just, it includes a review mechanism and it meets our obligations under European—[Interruption.]

Richard Bacon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is right that the House should know whether the certificate from the Home Secretary that the original Bill is in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998 stands, as it is not on this Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's point is one for debate rather than a matter for the Chair.

David Lammy: May I confirm that of course the certificate stands? We have that obligation to the House when we introduce a Bill, but not when the Bill is changed; it will be there again when we introduce—

It being Nine o'clock Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 303.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 11
	 — 
	Unification of appeal system

Amendment proposed: No. 93, in page 11, line 25, at end insert—
	'(5A) A party to the Tribunal's decision may apply within 7 days to the High Court or, in Scotland, to the Court of Session for review of the Tribunal's decision on the ground that the Tribunal made an error of law.
	(5B) Where an application is made under this subsection—
	(a) it shall be determined by a single judge by reference only to written submissions, unless the court on receiving such submissions is of the opinion that there are exceptional reasons for an oral hearing;
	(b) the judge may affirm or reverse the Tribunal's decision, or remit for rehearing to the Tribunal;
	(c) if, in any application to the High Court, the judge thinks that the application had no merit he shall issue a certificate under this paragraph.
	(5C) Where the High Court or in Scotland the Court of Session affirms or reverses a review under this section a party to the review may bring an appeal as a point of law within 7 days—
	(a) where the original decision was that of a judge of the Court of Session in Scotland to the Inner House of that Court; or
	(b) in any other case, to the Court of Appeal.
	(5D) An appeal under subsection (5C) may be brought only with the permission of—
	(a) the court that made it, or
	(b) the court referred to in subsection (5C)(a) or (b) if the High Court or Court of Session in Scotland refuses permission.
	(5E) An application made under subsection (5D)(b) must be made within 7 days of the refusal of permission to appeal by the High Court or Court of Appeal.'—[Mr. Grieve.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 310.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 4
	 — 
	Repeals

Amendment proposed: No. 33, in page 41, line 24, second column, at beginning insert 'Section 55.'—[Mr. Gerrard.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 84, Noes 305.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 8
	 — 
	Initial decisions

'(1) Initial decisions by the Secretary of State on asylum applications shall be made and notified to the applicant within six weeks of the application being made.
	(2) Notice of appeal from the decision of the Secretary of State to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ("the Tribunal")—
	(a) must be made in writing;
	(b) must be lodged with the Tribunal within 14 days of the decision appealed against, and
	(c) must list all the grounds on which the appeal is made.
	(3) Within 14 days of receipt of the notice of appeal the Tribunal shall hold a direction hearing at which all parties to the appeal shall be present.'.—[Mr. Malins.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 317.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Remaining Government amendments agreed to.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Provision of immigration services

'(1) For section 84(2) and (3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (person qualified to provide immigration services) substitute—
	"(2) A person is a qualified person if he is—
	(a) a registered person,
	(b) authorised by a designated professional body to practise as a member of the profession whose members the body regulates,
	(c) the equivalent in an EEA State of—
	(i) a registered person, or
	(ii) a person within paragraph (b),
	(d) a person permitted, by virtue of exemption from a prohibition, to provide in an EEA State advice or services equivalent to immigration advice or services, or
	(e) acting on behalf of, and under the supervision of, a person within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) (whether or not under a contract of employment).
	(3) Subsection (2)(a) and (e) are subject to any limitation on the effect of a person's registration imposed under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 6."
	(2) In section 85(1) of that Act (registration by the Commissioner) omit "and (b)".
	(3) In section 89 of that Act (disciplinary charge upheld by Immigration Services Tribunal)—
	(a) for subsections (2) and (3) substitute—
	"(2) If the person charged is a registered person or acts on behalf of a registered person, the Tribunal may—
	(a) direct the Commissioner to record the charge and the Tribunal's decision for consideration in connection with the registered person's next application for continued registration;
	(b) direct the registered person to apply for continued registration as soon as is reasonably practicable.", and
	(c) in subsection (8) for "employed by him or working" substitute "acting on his behalf or".
	(4) In section 90(4) of that Act (orders by disciplinary bodies) for "works under the supervision of" substitute "is acting on behalf of".
	(5) In Schedule 5 to that Act (Immigration Services Commissioner)—
	(a) for paragraph 1(1)(b) substitute—
	"(b) those acting on behalf of registered persons,",
	(b) for paragraph 1(3)(b) substitute—
	"(b) any person acting on behalf of that person.",
	(c) for paragraph 3(3)(b) substitute—
	"(b) a person who is acting on behalf of a person who is within paragraph (a);",
	(d) for paragraph 4(1)(b) substitute—
	"(b) persons acting on behalf of persons who are within paragraph (a).",
	(e) in paragraph 5(3)(b) for "employed by, or working under the supervision of," substitute "acting on behalf of",
	(f) for paragraph 5(3)(e) substitute—
	"(e) an alleged breach of a rule of a relevant regulatory body,",
	(g) for paragraph 6(3)(c) substitute—
	"(c) in any other case, refer the matter to any relevant regulatory body.",
	(h) in paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b) for "or a person employed by, or working under the supervision of," substitute "or is acting on behalf of",
	(i) for paragraph 9(1)(c) substitute—
	"(c) refer the complaint and his decision on it to a relevant regulatory body;",
	(j) for paragraphs 9(3)(a) and (b) substitute—
	"(a) imposing restrictions on the provision of immigration advice or immigration services by the relevant person or by a person acting on his behalf or under his supervision;
	(b) prohibiting the provision of immigration advice or immigration services by the relevant person or a person acting on his behalf or under his supervision.",and
	(k) for paragraphs 9(4)(b) to (d) substitute—
	"(b) a person acting on behalf of a registered person;".
	(6) In Schedule 6 to that Act (registration)—
	(a) in paragraph 1(1) omit "or (b)", and
	(b) in paragraph 3(7)(a) for "section 89(3)(b)" substitute "section 89(2)(b)".'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Offences: advice of director of public prosecutions

'In section 3(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23) (functions of Director of Public Prosecutions) after paragraph (eb) insert—
	"(ec) to give, to such extent as he considers appropriate, advice to immigration officers on matters relating to criminal offences;".'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Enforcement powers: retention of documents

'Where a document comes into the possession of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer in the course of the exercise of an immigration function, the Secretary of State or an immigration officer may retain the document while he suspects that—
	(a) a person to whom the document relates may be liable to removal from the United Kingdom in accordance with a provision of the Immigration Acts, and
	(b) retention of the document may facilitate the removal.'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Seamen and aircrews: right of appeal

'In section 82(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) after paragraph (i) insert—
	"(ia) a decision that a person is to be removed from the United Kingdom by way of directions under paragraph 12(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c.77) (seamen and aircrews),".'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Control of entry

'After paragraph 2A(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (control of entry: persons arriving with leave to enter) insert—
	"(2A) Where the person's leave to enter derives, by virtue of section 3A(3), from an entry clearance, he may also be examined by an immigration officer for the purpose of establishing whether the leave should be cancelled on the grounds that the person's purpose in arriving in the United Kingdom is different from the purpose specified in the entry clearance."'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7
	 — 
	Appeal from within United Kingdom

'For section 92(3) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (appeal from within United Kingdom: person with entry clearance or work permit) substitute—
	"(3) This section also applies to an appeal against refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom if—
	(a) at the time of the refusal the appellant is in the United Kingdom, and
	(b) on his arrival in the United Kingdom the appellant had entry clearance.
	(3A) But this section does not apply by virtue of subsection (3) if subsection (3B) or (3C) applies to the refusal of leave to enter.
	(3B) This subsection applies to a refusal of leave to enter which is a deemed refusal under paragraph 2A(9) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 resulting from cancellation of leave to enter by an immigration officer—
	(a) under paragraph 2A(8) of that Schedule, and
	(b) on the grounds specified in paragraph 2A(2A) of that Schedule.
	(3C) This subsection applies to a refusal of leave to enter which specifies that the grounds for refusal are that the leave is sought for a purpose other than that specified in the entry clearance.
	(3D) This section also applies to an appeal against refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom if at the time of the refusal the appellant—
	(a) is in the United Kingdom,
	(b) has a work permit, and
	(c) is any of the following (within the meaning of the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61))—
	(i) a British overseas territories citizen,
	(ii) a British Overseas citizen,
	(iii) a British National (Overseas),
	(iv) a British protected person, or
	(v) a British subject."'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How long do we have for Third Reading of this important and controversial Bill?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that as well as I do.

David Blunkett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I thank my ministerial colleagues from the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Whips, all members of the Standing Committee and all hon. Members who participated today. The Bill has been properly and adequately considered. Once we got over using silly words, such as "despicable", about clause 7, we had a sensible debate.
	I am pleased that we have amended the Bill to include trafficking offences to deal with forced labour, and tackled important subjects such as child slavery. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who does not always agree with me, for his work in Committee in drawing attention to that. I am glad that we could make important changes.
	Clause 11 has caused controversy and will cause it in another place. It is a classic example, which shows that had people been more modest in their operation of the law and their approach to their job, they would not have cooked the goose that laid the golden egg. I am talking about lawyers who simply abused the judicial review system by dragging out cases for months and, in some instances, years. That is what happens when those who preach liberalism lead us down the wrong path so that those who try to protect human rights and individual interests find that the system has been so abused that we have to remove the golden thread. The legal aid budget has doubled to £174 million. That is public money that has not gone towards asylum seekers or people in the community but into lawyers' pockets. That is a disgrace that is coming to an end.

Humfrey Malins: The Home Secretary is quick to condemn lawyers, but if he had heard today's debate he would realise that the rule of law is under attack from an illiberal Government. If any of us had been asked to accept that, one day, the Executive—the Government of this country—would be exempt from judicial oversight or scrutiny, we would have been, first, amazed, secondly, angry and thirdly, ashamed.
	All the people within this country's jurisdiction should be treated equally under the law. The Government have been universally condemned by their own supporters. Speaker after speaker from the Labour Benches condemned the Government's proposals. Not one hon. Member supported the Government's approach; even the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) was lame in his support.
	On Second Reading, Conservative Members said that we wanted the Bill to be improved in Committee, but it has been improved only a little. The Government have made far too few improvements. Lest it be believed that we debate matters sensibly in the House, I stress that the Government tabled 64 amendments and new clauses today. Many aspects of the Bill have simply not been debated in the House of Commons, either in Committee or the Chamber.
	Appeals provisions are vital for the freedom of the individual, whether he or she is of our nationality or from abroad. All deserve equal treatment. The Bill remains seriously flawed and we cannot actively support it. We shall try to amend it as best we can in the House of Lords. We hope that the Government will have the sense to permit some form of judicial oversight of the Executive.
	The Bill is not only illiberal but grossly unfair to tens of thousands of people. I hope to goodness that I speak for all Conservative Members and most of the Labour party when I say that the Bill needs to be improved in the House of Lords.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 65.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If one of the Tellers standing before the Mace to announce the vote was not the same Teller who counted the Division, is the Division still valid? Is there any precedent for what happened, and are you prepared—if not now, after a period of reflection—to consider whether the Third Reading Division was valid, owing to the fact that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) sprang forward from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, even though he was not a Teller, and purported to announce the vote? It is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. The House should take such matters seriously; and I believe that we could have established a very dangerous precedent. I hope that you will reflect on the issue, Mr. Speaker, before you tell the House that the Division was valid and substantive.

Andrew Stunell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. No discourtesy was intended to the House, and I hope that you will feel that what happened was, in all the circumstances, proper and in order.

Edward Leigh: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me respond to the points of order, after which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) may not need to raise another one.
	I felt that it was tidy to have four Tellers to report to the House. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has asked me a question, and I am in the process of explaining what is in order. I invited the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to fill the space. The House has to move quickly and the Speaker has to take snap decisions. My snap decision will go into "Erskine May"—[Interruption.] Perhaps in 100 years from now, when a Teller is missing, the House will refer to the precedent that has been established today. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the vote that was delivered was perfectly valid, and that there is no need for a re-run.

Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I would never seek to question any of your rulings, but surely the whole point of the Teller system is to have one person who counts and another who checks that; the two then report back to the House. Of course this would not happen now, but there might have been difficulties in the past, and there might be misreporting. I should not want the age-old custom to be in any way upset.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the age-old custom has been protected, because it has been clearly reported to me that there were four Tellers, two counting the Aye votes and two counting the No votes. Therefore, that stage was well and truly completed; only the reporting was different. Three of the original Tellers out of four have reported. That is very tidy, and I do not know what is worrying the hon. Gentleman. If he wants a re-run, I can assure him that it certainly will not be tonight.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the whole point of our voting procedure is to have one Teller for one side of the argument and one for the other. It seems that there was a Government Teller in the Lobby, but we know not whether the other Teller verified what the Government Teller told the Clerks. The House is now in the invidious position of not being able to rely on the fact that there were two Tellers, of different points of view, reporting back to the House. That surely must—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that three Tellers out of four have reported the result—

Eric Forth: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Three Tellers out of four have reported the result to the House. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that both the Government Teller and the Liberal Teller were in the appropriate Lobby, counting the votes. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, so that he does not have a sleepless night, that if the Speaker is wrong, and there was no Teller in that Lobby, he can report to me and I shall deal with the matter. However, I can assure him that the Teller was in the Lobby.
	It must be borne in mind that the Teller concerned was somewhat inexperienced.

Eric Forth: That is worse.

Mr. Speaker: Well, that may be worse, but I have seen the right hon. Gentleman from time to time coaching and helping inexperienced Tellers, and a very nice practice it is too, to help those who are less experienced than he is.
	Perhaps I can now go on to the Northern Ireland orders.

Andrew Stunell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who has been raising points of order on the conduct of the vote, did not in fact pass through either Lobby, and therefore cannot offer the House any useful information?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must know that I have, rather rapidly, moved on to the next item of business.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Prison (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
	Question agreed to
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Police

That the draft Independent Police Complaints Commission (Investigatory Powers) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

That the draft Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in force of Sections 21 to 23) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday 3 March, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003].

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Level of Certain Heavy Metals and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Ambient Air.

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11645/03, draft Directive relating to arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air; and supports the Government objectives of ensuring appropriate levels of protection for human health and of the environment but also resisting unnecessary measures that might have a disproportionate effect on United Kingdom industry.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
	Question agreed to.

VISITOR FACILITIES

Motion made,
	That this House approves the First Joint Report of the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee on Visitor Facilities: Access to Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 324) and endorses the Committees' proposals for a new reception and security building at the north end of Cromwell Green.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Ordered,
	That Mr Tom Harris be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Kate Hoey be added.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION
	 — 
	Tetra Masts

Julian Lewis: I have to inform the House that the number of signatories on this petition has not been verified by Tellers, but I am assured that there are 979 of them. My constituents, like those on the Isle of Wight and in neighbouring areas, are concerned about the way in which Tetra masts have been implanted on the landscape without planning permission, and about the implications of this.
	Accordingly, the petition of Dibden residents declares:
	That the erection of a Tetra telecommunications mast by Airwave MMO2 at Home Farm is perceived by the residents as posing a real threat to their health and is in breach of an enforcement order implemented by New Forest district council, who had already refused planning permission.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate steps to halt the roll-out of the Tetra system until such time as it has been proved absolutely and beyond any doubt in the mind of the public that it is completely safe.
	To lie upon the Table.

SCHOOL MEALS (ESSEX)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Bob Russell: My debate is about the despicable and callous decision made just before Christmas by Conservative councillors on Essex county council to scrap, with little more than three months' notice, the county's school meals service from 1 April. This is a deplorable act against children, many of whom are from disadvantaged families. Even "milk-snatcher" Thatcher, infamous for doing away with school milk—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a courtesy that we practise in the House when referring to Members of the upper House to refer to them in the proper way, and not in a manner such as that used by the hon. Gentleman.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to you for correcting me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Even Baroness Thatcher, the milk-snatcher, never attacked some of the most vulnerable people in our society, depriving children as young as four or five of wholesome, nutritional hot dinners which are so important for their development and well-being.
	For many children, the school dinner is their main meal of the day. For some, it is their only hot meal of the day. That is particularly important at this time of year.
	I urge the Minister tonight, as I urged the Prime Minister on 28 January, to intervene to ensure that Essex county council continues to provide a proper school meals service, as it has done for decades, and ideally to return to what it was prior to the Education Act 1980, which was the first move to undermine the ideals enshrined in the Education Act 1944.
	Unfortunately, the Essex Tories are hiding behind a Government 1999 education order to carry out their dastardly deed to rid themselves of the moral responsibility to maintain a countywide school meals service. Governors of 356 junior, primary and infant schools—all of them volunteers, many of them parents—now find themselves faced with the organisational duties and legal consequences that hitherto were undertaken by paid and professionally qualified full-time officials.
	Mrs. Jan Blackwell, chair of the governors of North primary school in Colchester, tells me:
	"Governors and Headteachers are angry at this sudden extra responsibility in an impossible time-frame. We have little knowledge of Food Hygiene Standards, Nutritional Guidelines and Health and Safety Regulations in the kitchen."
	Immediate revocation of the Government's 1999 order is called for because I cannot that believe it was ever intended that it be used as it is now.
	We also need an explanation from Essex county council as to why it has acted as it has. We need to do whatever is necessary to restore matters to the way they were previously, the objective being to ensure that all parents who require their children to have a hot midday meal—either paid or free, as applicable—can do so.
	If Essex county council is saying that it cannot oversee the school meals service of 27,000 meals each day with its purchasing power as the second-largest local education authority in the country, how does it expect individual schools, or perhaps a few schools banding together, to achieve a better deal at very short notice? Some might, and good luck to them, but for those schools that do not have the capacity to do so, the moral responsibility ought to remain with the LEA. Perhaps Essex feels that it is not getting a fair financial deal from the Government to keep the meals service. Whatever the truth—it is academic for parents and the schools—either county hall or Whitehall must find the resources.
	This is not a reckless demand for greater public spending, but rather a plea for joined-up government—at all levels—so the world's fourth-richest economy ensures that no child goes hungry or is deprived of a hot meal for what, in terms of Essex's massive budget and what the national economy generates, is petty cash in comparison.

Bob Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman think that full consultation prior to taking a decision constitutes joined-up government? Will he ask the Minister to get Essex county council to have such consultation, something for which I called at column 1783 in an Adjournment debate on 18 December?

Bob Russell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention and I sincerely hope that that will be taken on board. Lack of consultation is one of the major issues that we need to discuss.
	The alternative is the real risk of some children—not just those from backgrounds which are already disadvantaged, but more widely—having their whole development damaged, with consequences for their health sooner or later. With national health service budgets always under pressure, the cost to the public purse ultimately will be greater than if children grow up healthy with a proper diet, of which a school dinner is often the main ingredient.
	Young bodies damaged by lack of proper nourishment throughout their growing years may never recover. With obesity increasing all the time, often through poor diet, doing away with the carefully structured diets that hot school meals should provide will do nothing to help the situation. Essex LEA is setting the scene where, alongside obese children, we could also witness the return of rickets in others. That is irresponsible behaviour by the county hall administration.
	The Government must act. The principles of the national healthy schools standard must be upheld; ditto the children's national service framework to promote healthy diets. It is not good enough to commission such worthy reports as "Securing Good Health for the Whole Population" from Derek Wanless, published only last week, and "Every Child Matters", published last September, and then do nothing when Essex county council undermines the good intentions in those reports by scrapping the school meals service. That service is vital to so many of the county's children, particularly those from disadvantaged families or from families where parents are at work and where the school meal is an important feature of that family's lifestyle.
	I draw the Minister's attention to page 156 of the Wanless report, box 7.3, which states:
	"The issues of food promotion to children and school meals illustrate the importance of the involvement and engagement of stakeholders in public health issues—as awareness, consensus for action and support for future public health measures can all be gained."
	I remind the House that the Prime Minister, in answer to my question to him just over a month ago, said that
	"we believe that the provision of school meals for pupils, especially from the poorest backgrounds, has a beneficial effect on their education. Unfortunately, some of our youngsters go to school without having had a proper meal. It means that they do not learn or pay attention in their lessons as well as they should, and it is for that reason that we are deeply committed to ensuring that the funding is there for local authorities to provide that service. I will look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raises."—[Official Report, 28 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 307.]
	Will the Minister tonight match the Prime Minister's encouraging response?
	I am deeply concerned that, with the ending of hot school dinners and their replacement with packed lunches, those children who currently have free meals will be the only ones served with a packed lunch, provided by bulk delivery or whatever. These will be identical little packages, making it obvious to everybody who is in receipt of a free lunch. Currently, all children having a school dinner sit together; there is no segregation or obvious difference as to who is in receipt of a free dinner and those whose parents can afford to pay. Only people in the office know. Children whose family circumstances qualify them for a free meal—there are around 7,000 in Essex—will in future be exposed, with all the unhappiness that can so often happen as a result of such singling out.
	Although, of course, I recognise that ultimately it is the responsibility of each individual to look after his or her own body, and those of their children, the Government cannot ignore situations such as that to which I have drawn to Parliament's attention. Only last week, the Consumers Association warned:
	"Obesity and diet-related diseases are now seen as Britain's biggest killers."
	The association's call for a nutrition council is welcome. I am sure that such a council would want school meals promoted, not scrapped. Incidentally, getting rid of school meals will not help the Government in their aim of providing better opportunities for working families. School dinners are a great help where one or both parents are working.
	A roll call of schools in my constituency where the reluctant decision has been taken to provide only packed lunches from next month includes the Montgomery infant and junior, the St. Michael's primary, and the King's Ford infant and junior schools. There are others, but I deliberately highlight those five because they are the ones attended by the bulk of children aged under 11 whose parents are members of Her Majesty's armed forces based at the Colchester garrison.
	About 3,000 soldiers from Colchester served in the Iraq war less than a year ago. Currently 600 other soldiers from the town are on peacekeeping duties in Iraq. That is how Conservative councillors reward our troops who put their lives on the line—they deprive their children of hot school dinners.
	I shall be drawing the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence to that scandalous situation. The House needs to know that it is not good for the morale of our troops, and does nothing to help the retention of our professional soldiers, for their children to be going without a hot school dinner because of penny-pinching by those who control the public purse.
	As an aside, I am told that the food allowance per meal that the Home Office makes available for each prisoner is greater than the cost of a school dinner. Is it asking too much for equivalent funding to be provided for the school meals service in Essex, so that the health of our children is given the same consideration as that of prisoners?
	The scrapping of the school meals service in Essex has led to a major outcry right across the county. The only people who seem to be in favour of it are Tory county councillors. Schools are outraged at the short notice they were given—just days before Christmas—that the service would be terminated at the end of March. Heads, teachers, parents, governors have all protested, but all to no avail.
	Two weeks ago, Ms Ruth Brock, chair of the Essex primary heads association, told a packed meeting at Colchester town hall:
	"We did not know that we were going to be left in this situation. Most heads are feeling incredibly dumped upon because we did not know this was going to happen."
	Mrs. Fran Wagstaff, secretary of the local branch of the National Union of Teachers, said:
	"The NUT is concerned about the welfare of many of the pupils who rely on this one hot meal in the middle of the day. This may seem like a saving in the short term, but the long term effect of unhealthy eating will have a greater cost to the nation's health."
	There has been massive media coverage of something that appears more to echo life in Charles Dickens's Victorian Britain than the supposedly more enlightened times of 21st-century Britain. The Colchester Evening Gazette has been running an excellent "Save Our School Dinners" campaign from which I would like to quote extracts. For example, last Wednesday, 25 February, the main headline on its front page stated: "Schools End Hot Dinners". A sub-headline added:
	"Proper meals will be off the menu".
	Chief reporter Laurence Cawley wrote:
	"Hot meals are to be dropped from many school menus in Colchester. Schools across the county have struggled to arrange their own dinners after Essex County Council decided not to renew a central contract with meal providers.
	It left schools having to try to hammer out their own deals with dinner providers within just a few weeks.
	Some have managed to keep their hot dinner service, but many have not. It means hundreds of schoolchildren in and around Colchester will only be offered sandwiches for lunch."
	The head teacher of King's Ford junior school, Mr. Lawrence Garside, told the Gazette:
	"We didn't have the time to get something else sorted out. Budgets are tight and we just cannot afford to lose money on it.
	We are going to have to offer packed lunches. We hope this will just be a stop-gap measure and we will be trying to offer hot dinners as soon as possible. It might be back from September but it is too early to say."
	Over at Montgomery junior school, head teacher Mr. Graham Eskell said that it was likely that the school's kitchens would be decommissioned and added:
	"We feel deep regret about losing a hot meals service. We have not been given enough time to sort this out."
	Meanwhile, at North primary school two cooks, Mrs. Carol Tralau and Mrs. Evie Drummond, who between them have prepared dinners there for a combined total of 40 years, are to lose their jobs. They are typical of the dedicated dinner staff at many schools across Essex who are to be made redundant because of the disgraceful behaviour of the county hall Tories.
	On Thursday, the Evening Gazette carried a full-page article with the comments of pupils at King's Ford junior school, stating that their message
	"came through loud and clear: we love our dinners, please keep them on the menu".
	Seven-year-old Rose Chandler feels so strongly that she has written to the leader of Essex county council, Lord Hanningfield, begging him to rethink the council's decision. She said:
	"I enjoy my hot dinners especially when it is cold outside."
	Ten-year-old Louis Woods said:
	"I don't really like having packed lunches. I have been here four years and I've only missed having a school dinner five times. When the hot dinners go, I think it will be odd . . . And what will happen to our Christmas dinners? We all sit down and have a Christmas dinner and the teachers bring us our food. It is a special time. And all the dinner ladies here are really nice and good cooks."
	It is worth quoting what the chairman of governors of King's Ford junior school says. Referring to the short time scale given to individual schools to make alternative arrangements, Richard Bourne told the Evening Gazette:
	"It is simply impossible for schools to go through a proper process of decision-making in order to find a new provider in the time they have been given. As a consequence, some children will no longer get a hot dinner.
	This is a disgrace and shames the politicians and bureaucrats at County Hall whose own lavish facilities mean they never go without."
	Mr. Bourne speaks with authority and personal knowledge. He is a Labour county councillor.
	Parents are deeply angered. Their views are summed up by Ms Paula Chandler, of Monkwick, who has organised a petition urging the county council to rethink its position. She said:
	"When parents work shifts, they often have to make children sandwiches at night. They don't want their children having two packed lunches a day.
	And then there's single parents such as myself. It is nice to know they've had a hot meal at school because we lead such busy lives and it takes the pressure off to know they have had a hot meal."
	The decision to scrap the county-run school meals service was sudden. The first that schools knew was just before Christmas when Essex county council said it would no longer be awarding group contracts for dinners—the schools were handed the legal responsibility for providing a school meal, whether hot or cold.
	Mrs. Blackwell, chairman of the governors of North primary school, described matters from her perspective, saying:
	"The LEA decided, after 15 months of negotiation on a group contract for meals as requested by over 340 schools in the county, to abandon and devolve meals to individual schools. I am not entirely sure of the legality of this decision. It breaches the contract with the schools. Lord Hanningfield failed to comment when I asked him in a letter.
	Schools effectively had three months to arrange a new contract. Business plans were provided. Most schools were predicted to make a loss—minimum £2,800 for North School. This does not take into consideration the age of the kitchen; replacement, maintenance and repair at North could potentially be very costly.
	Losses would have to be covered from individual school budgets, which are already very tight and predicted to remain at a standstill for the coming year in Essex. This takes money away from the teaching and learning provision of every child in that school. How can this raise standards?
	There is no longer equity for children in Essex, and this decision does not sit comfortably with the Government's Every Child Matters. It also makes a mockery of the Teachers Work Load Agreement.
	No consideration has been given to staff involved, namely Headteachers, Governors and the cooks. They were not included in the discussion nor decision to end the group contract. Many cooks now face redundancy after many years of service."
	Those comments from Mrs. Blackwell will be echoed by chairs of other school governing bodies across Essex. She demonstrates the shabby, shoddy way in which schools in Essex have been treated by the Conservative-controlled county council. Schools are looking to Government to step in to save the school meals service in Essex. The well-being of children, their good health, and the need to ensure that no child is left hungry or under-nourished, demand that urgent action be taken to prevent the service ending at the end of this month.
	It is not enough to say that the responsibility is one for the local education authority, for the LEA has passed the legal responsibility to school governing bodies, which in most instances would prefer not to have it—as a general rule, they do not have the experience or the qualifications to operate the school meals service, they do not have spare revenue funds to finance it, and they have no capital to pay for replacement kitchen equipment in due course.
	Government intervention is the only solution. I urge the Minister to act without delay. Children at schools across Essex, as well as their parents and all involved with the school meals service, will appreciate it. After all, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in his introduction to "Every Child Matters",
	"Since 1997 we have tried to put children first. We have increased the focus on prevention through the child poverty strategy, Sure Start and our work to raise school standards. But there is still more to do."
	The executive summary of "Every Child Matters" stresses the need for children to have a healthy lifestyle and to enjoy better health—and for the eradication of child poverty.
	The end of the school meals service in Essex is against what the Government have been striving to achieve. To me, every child matters. I look to the Minister to demonstrate tonight by a promise of immediate action that every child in Essex matters to the Government.

Alan Hurst: I am pleased to have the opportunity to support briefly the argument of the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). I first raised this matter at business questions some weeks ago. There is certainly great concern in my area, as well as in the urban area that he represents, and especially in small village schools, which do not have the budget to deal with such extra costs. In addition, the percentage involved is much greater as an overall part of their budget than it would be for a larger school. The further difficulty that such small schools have is that the head teacher has to deal with this as well as with all the other administrative tasks that they have.
	Also, larger schools may often have assistants, which smaller schools do not have.
	I am disappointed that the county council on which I served for several years before coming to the House has sought to take this step. It follows fast after its decision to weaken the provision of denominational transport. One had hoped that school meals and transport would be regarded as an integral part of the education service in Essex and that they would continue as hitherto.

Stephen Twigg: I welcome the debate that has been instigated by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). The passionate and powerful way in which he sets out his case demonstrates the real concern that exists in his constituency and throughout Essex about the decision. That is also shown by the cross-party presence in the Chamber and the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink).
	First, I associate myself fully with the emphasis in the speech made by the hon. Member for Colchester on inclusion, the message of "Every Child Matters", the importance of healthy standards in our schools and the use of the school curriculum, including the meals service, as a vehicle to challenge some of the great issues of the day, including obesity. I associate myself with what he said about that and the connection that he made with the "Every Child Matters" Green Paper, forthcoming legislation on children's rights, and the publication of the Wanless report and its connection with the healthy schools standard.
	It is important for the House to be clear about the issue. It is not about responsibility for the provision of meals, which has not actually changed, but rather about how schools can reasonably be expected to discharge their responsibilities to ensure that that provision exists.

Ivan Henderson: I recently attended a meeting with the governors and head teacher of All Saints school in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend think that the time scale that was put in place for schools to take on the enormous changes forced on them by Essex county council was reasonable to give them adequate time to prepare, especially given that they had just returned following the Christmas holidays?

Stephen Twigg: I share the concern that my hon. Friend and both Opposition Members in the Chamber have expressed. I shall come on to the timing of the announcements a little later in my speech.
	It is important to make it clear that the Government are committed to the principle of devolution and delegation of resources and responsibilities to the local level, in the belief that decisions on spending are best taken at the most local level, including the level of the school. When the new arrangements described by the hon. Member for Colchester were introduced in 1999, we made it clear that funding and responsibility for the provision of school meals would be automatically delegated to secondary schools. In Essex, that took place immediately in 1999.
	The situation for primary and special schools is more complex. We recognised at the time of the decision in 1999 that not all schools would want to make their own arrangements. Therefore delegation was not made compulsory—primary schools were given the option of taking it. In Essex, the decision was taken to delegate funding, and thus responsibility, to all primary schools. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, the great majority of those schools were brought back into the local education authority meals service, which was provided on behalf of the LEA by two contractors. Frankly, that mirrored the experience of most other authorities, which normally provide a meals service for schools to buy back into, although they are under no obligation to do so.
	Last year, Essex re-tendered its meals service contracts because concerns were expressed about quality. The cost of the new, improved contracts was calculated at around an additional £2.2 million. In the light of that evidence, the LEA decided that it could not afford to delegate sufficient extra funding to enable schools to meet the consequent charges.
	As has already been said, just before Christmas the local education authority took its decision not to enter into new contracts, and instead to end its meals service for primary schools from April this year—one month from now. The hon. Member for Colchester and other hon. Members from Essex will have received a copy of Lord Hanningfield's letter of 28 January setting out the LEA's position.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the short notice, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree reiterated that, and the hon. Member for Castle Point spoke about a lack of consultation. We are clear that Essex is legally entitled to do what it plans to do, but we do not pretend that that is an ideal situation, particularly with regard to the timing. Schools in Essex have had very short notice of the LEA's decision, and have therefore had to devote a significant amount of time and effort to considering alternatives. Those concerns have been well expressed today.
	We are particularly concerned about the position of some of the smaller schools, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree referred. To be fair to Essex county council, I must point out that it has sought to put in place a fairly comprehensive package of advice and guidance for schools, including meetings and resources via the internet. However, whatever help is given, that does not detract from the fact that, from April, governing bodies will find themselves with a continued legal responsibility for providing free school meals and paid lunches when requested, while the service from which many of them were buying has disappeared at short notice.
	I am pleased that the LEA is doing two concrete things to assist at least some of the schools in Essex. First, it has arranged to extend one of the two existing contracts—that with Initial Catering in south Essex—until the end of the summer term. That at least gives some of the schools more time if they need to make arrangements, and our latest information is that 46 Essex schools are taking advantage of that extension.
	Secondly, the LEA has agreed to provide some additional resources, over the passporting requirements, into the schools budget—about £900,000, to be distributed to schools that are in financial difficulty as a result of the changes. Taking on board my hon. Friend's point, I hope that some of the small rural schools for which the situation will be especially challenging will be able to benefit from that additional resource. I welcome those decisions.
	It may help if I share with the House some other figures supplied to us by the county council: 70 per cent. of primary schools have said what they intend to do from April. Besides the 46 that I have already mentioned, about 115 are making arrangements with a private contractor, 39 have decided to provide meals for themselves, and 53 will, as the hon. Member for Colchester said, provide a cold meal option, at least initially. Although cold meals can meet the nutritional standards that apply to school lunches, the Department for Education and Skills strongly recommends that at least some hot meal options should be available in all schools, so we share the concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed about that situation. I shall return to that subject briefly at the end of my speech.
	Despite the transitional difficulties that will inevitably arise, it is important to remember that the existing service was not universally well thought of. Schools that are embarking on their own provision have an opportunity to build around their own wishes and circumstances in a way that involves the whole school, and I was struck by a notice from a former Essex head teacher posted on the LEA's guidance website pointing out the inspiring effect on his school of making its own meal arrangements. I have also seen that inspirational effect in other schools in other parts of the country, including smaller primary schools.
	None the less, there is a real danger that in the summer term, children at some Essex schools may have either no meals provision or an inadequate one. Responsibility in that respect is clear: the governing body of each school has a responsibility, and that will continue to be the case. However, I accept that that alone is not sufficient.
	The Department certainly has every expectation that Essex county council's procurement service will make every effort to give specific help to those schools that are still in difficulty in fulfilling the requirements that we all have of them. The Government will monitor the situation closely and seek regular progress reports from the local education authority. I would hope—indeed, I am very confident—that the hon. Member for Colchester and other hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Essex constituencies will continue to take an active interest in the subject and bring to the attention of the Government and the House any cases in which all is not going well.
	Schools have been placed in a position of managing a transition in a very short time. That falls short of the ideal in terms of consultation and school involvement. From the information that I have, most schools in Essex will be able to achieve that and some, for the reason I gave, may even benefit from it. However, it would have been better had Essex county council given schools more time to plan for alternatives. I accept that since it took the decision, the LEA has gone to considerable lengths to assist schools to make other arrangements, despite the fact that it is under no legal duty to do so, and it is giving some financial assistance, as I set out.
	Overall, the verdict at this stage must be to wait and see. The DFES will monitor the situation closely, with interest and concern, because we want to ensure that every child in Essex gets access to decent school food. The governors have a responsibility to ensure that that happens, but we want to work with the LEA and, indeed, with colleagues throughout the House to ensure that that aspiration is a reality for all the children of Essex.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.